http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...606010350/1148

Sorry, this article just makes me frothing angry.

Among the highlights:

"No one wants"? Someone should tell tree-hugger boy GM truck/SUV sales are way up since the introduction of the GMT-900. If you listened to the media you'd think the only vehicles that sell are hybrids.

This guy takes the cake:

You'd think for a 2001 Nobel Prize winner in economics he'd understand the ramifications of GM going under...unless he's just talking about Toyota becoming the world's #1...I'd try to e-mail this far left blowhard but you apparently have to subscribe to that fine rag that is the New York Times.

Bob Lutz's rebuttal is priceless:

 

That's extremely dissappointing, hearing that from Thomas L. Friedman. I really thought he was smart, but when you make an acenine statement like that about an extremely important, capital-drawing company, you can throw away nearly everything he's said. I almost bought that book.

 

Smart people always have the most seemingly outlandish ideas and opinions. It's what happens when you think for yourself rather than repeat what you hear from others.

*BUT* with that said the guy in that article, to me, still seems like he's gone over the deep end. That, and he's a certified hippie.

 

It took me by surpise, because Friedman seemed to me to be one who understood America, mainly how it is viewed by other countries, but understood his country nonetheless. Guess not.

 

Tom Friedman most certainly did not win a Nobel Prize, nor is he very bright. Although maybe it is a smart strategy to produce outrageously sophistic columns in order to attract attention and thereby justify advertising costs.

 

Friedman does not understand America. But he does understand ratings, and popularity. He can be easily swayed with current trends.

 

Sorry, he won a Pulitzer, not a Nobel. Big difference I know. One implies you're very smart, the other implies you're a great (controversial?) writer.

What a dink.

 

Just backs up my general feeling that about 85% or so of the population of this planet are clueless.


The first guy must have missed when DCX was paying for gasoline for their new cars as a promo.... or the countless other times it's been done, either at a corporate or dealership level to make a sale.

Gas prices are high. Some people will see $1000 worth of free gasoline as more valuable than $1000 (or even more) in cash. Makes no sense, but see my remark about the 85% above...

 

I like how our media is so irresponsible. At what point do you take some responsibility in what you say and take a step back and think "Is what I am writing worth saying to sell papers or should I shut my mouth because I am doing a huge dis-service to our country".

We must remember that all reporters and media people are only concerned with one thing: Thier own egos.

 

Ah, the Mustache of Wisdom speaks again.

 

He mentions Toyota, but aren't they about to come out with a new full size pick-up, supposedly larger than the domestics? With GM having the majority of the full size SUV market, does he think Toyota wouldn't take advantage of that fact if it bought GM? If you can afford an expensive full size SUV you probably aren't that worried about gas prices.

 

I don't know about larger than the Domestics, but the next Tundra is a size larger. The new Rav-4, once a compact SUV, grew over a foot longer in its recent redesign. But hey, Toyota sells a few thousand Priuses a year. It's the snowjob to end all snowjobs.

Heeeeeck noooo. Don't you know that big evil GM is out to destroy the environment at any cost while Toyota, totally unselfish and caring nothing for profit, sponsors a "hug your nearest tree" campaign in every U.S. metropolis?

And that's really the whole point. It's another incentive to clear out the old model SUVs and some cars as well from just 2 freaking states. (The cars seem to be lost in the shuffle). Whenever anyone mentions gasoline these days, people freak out. If you're in the market for a truck, you're not worried about gas, be it $2/gallon or $3.

 

I nearly always disagree wtih Friedman, but I'll go to bat for him here. The guy is a Middle-East expert -- he sees first hand all of the corruption, destruction, and wars that the USA's oil habit has caused. I'll try to stay non-partisan and just point all all the dirty dealings with Saudi Arabia.

Then he turns around and sees a completely cavalier attitude towards this by american politicians and corporations.

Like it or not, GM has a huge perception problem around this. They are pushing huge SUVs, showing off muscle cars, and now subsizdizing gas. They've got nothing in their showrooms which indicates that they really care in the slightest. (Yea, E85 in 10 years or whatever.)

When Lutz says "borders on psychosis", he's really just accusing anyone who sees as a problem of being crazy. Basically GM's got a bad image on this, and their #2 Guy comes out and says they just want to sell cars to rednecks and that they don't care.

Yes, in reality Toyota is just as bad on the fuel economy issue. But selling cars has never been about reality -- it's all about perception and image. A Prius doesn't really make you an earth-mother and a Camaro doesn't really give you a bigger wiener, but people see what the marketing tells them to see.

If I was running the place (and I'm glad I'm not), I'd get a diesel Cobolt or *something* ... *anything* out quickly has great EPA and market the hell out of it, especially on the coasts, simply for PR coverage. GM's already got enough bad press for financial reasons, it's just purely stupid to be getting slammed for being deaf about their product mix.

In fact, I bet if GM "greened" up their image, they would sell even more SUVs. It certainly couldn't hurt.

(Actually, what they should have done was keep their electric car program going ... it was the ultimate anti-Prius.)

 

My personal opinion is that Friedman is an expert in nearly nothing. Middle East -- don't think so! What bothers me more is that he insists we're at war in the middle east because of oil. (wonder where he was on 9/11????)

Anyway -- our response to him. (and Mr. Harris is much calmer and nicer than I'd be........)

By Steven J. Harris
Vice President, Global Communications
Imagine our shock when we read yesterday that GM is “more dangerous to America’s future” than any other company, is “like a crack dealer” addicting helpless Americans to SUVs, and is in a cabal with Ford and DaimlerChrysler to buy votes in Congress.
These weren’t the rantings of some obscure, clueless blogger. These were the thoughts of Thomas L. Friedman, (subscription required) author and influential columnist, on the op/ed page of The New York Times.
Mr. Friedman is not normally known for such shrill hyperbole. In fact, he’s generally well-respected and known for presenting rational, fact-supported opinions.
That wasn’t the case with yesterday’s column. That a journalist of his caliber and reputation could write such a defamatory, uninformed opinion was shocking to those of us dedicated to this company and proud of what GM builds and contributes to the nation’s economy.
The GM he describes is not the GM we know. Either Mr. Friedman is being a propagandist, or he’s woefully misinformed. We prefer to believe the latter. In fact, we’d like to invite Mr. Friedman out to Detroit to learn about the work GM is doing on alternative fuels, on hydrogen fuel cells and on technology to make all of our vehicles more fuel efficient.
GM understands the issue of our nation’s dependency on foreign oil as well as anyone, and we're doing as much or more than anyone to address the issue, from making our gasoline engines more fuel-efficient to investing heavily in hybrid and fuel cell powertrains.
We also understand the impact of higher fuel prices on consumers. We offer Americans a full line of fuel-efficient options, including last year’s top-selling subcompact, the Chevy Aveo, and the well-regarded Chevy Cobalt compact. In fact, GM offers more vehicles that get 30 mpg or better EPA highway mileage than any other automaker. More than Toyota. More than Honda. More than Nissan.
We've suggested immediate ways that the United States can reduce its oil dependency, including getting more E85 ethanol fuel made from U.S. corn into our nation's gas stations. Many of the GM cars and trucks that Mr. Friedman mentioned in his column can run on E85 fuel, which is one way we can significantly reduce the amount of oil we use – right now. We already have more than 1.9 million of these so-called “Flex Fuel” cars and trucks on the road.
Mr. Friedman takes exception to a limited incentive that offers a partial credit toward fuel purchases on certain midsize cars and full-size SUVs in two markets where we are working hard to increase our market share. This is nothing more than a creative way to get consumers' consideration for our products in two very competitive segments.
Mr. Friedman sees it as something sinister, an effort to turn hapless Americans into fuel “addicts.” But let's be intellectually honest here: A gas card is not going to get someone considering a $15,000 economy car to buy a $35,000 Chevy Tahoe.
The people who buy full-size SUVs, by and large, do so because they have a need for them – be it a large family to haul around or a boat to tow. And exactly how is offering a gas card that may be worth $1,000 any different or more sinister than the $2,000 cash rebate that Toyota's offering right now nationwide on its full-size SUV, the Sequoia? The Sequoia, by the way, gets worse mileage than any of GM’s industry-leading full-size SUVs.
In fact, Mr. Friedman’s suggestion that Toyota’s approach toward fuel economy is vastly different than GM’s belies the facts. Give Toyota credit for the Prius hybrid. But if you look at the growth in Toyota’s business in the United States over the last decade, it has come primarily from expanding into the truck segments – including full size pickups and SUVs. GM entries in those segments, by the way, have better EPA mileage ratings than Toyota’s.
And which automaker is building a large new assembly plant in Texas to build its biggest full-size pickup yet? Toyota.
Don’t get me wrong. Toyota's a fine company. But like GM, Toyota offers a full range of cars and trucks to satisfy all their customers across this nation, not just what New York and Washington journalists who ride in yellow cabs think the rest of America should drive.
Mr. Friedman also misstates our position on fuel economy standards. The fact is, GM is not opposed to reasonable standards. But there is no proof that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations have done anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, oil consumption has increased dramatically over the years, even as vehicle fuel efficiency ratings have improved significantly.
That's because consumers make their own decisions on what to buy and how to drive. The sales-weighted “average fuel economy” numbers have not gone up more over the years because consumers have wanted larger, more powerful vehicles – even as our cars and trucks have become remarkably more fuel-efficient. Our new full-size SUVs that Mr. Friedman so despises, for example, now get more than 20 mpg on the highway.
GM has faced its share of criticism over the years, some of which was well-deserved. No company does everything right all the time. We appreciate constructive criticism that’s based on facts, and we try to listen and learn from it.
Today we’re in the midst of perhaps the largest turnaround in corporate history. We’re building the best, highest-quality cars and trucks in our history. We’re working closely and respectfully with our unions to lower our costs and fix the structural parts of our business that make us less competitive. And we continue to invest heavily in our future, a future that includes cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
We’re working hard to build a stronger GM and a stronger America that’s less dependent on foreign oil. Hyperbole and shrill editorializing on the pages of The New York Times shouldn’t mislead anyone.

 

I would not call him on expert on anything either, even if he did supposedly teach at colleges in the middle east. He interviews tons of people in middle easter countries concerning America and it's agendas, maybe the extremely askewed views of the middle eastern youth rubbed off on him.

Yet being a writer, he does not even notice GM pushing ethanol and flex fuel (DOD)...just picture how great it will be with both!!