afransen
Senior Member
I don't like the idea of gifts. Any bailout should be in the form of low-interest loans or equity.
|
|
|
When it comes to supports, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost is much better than millions of jobs lost. It's also better to have a North American car maker with North American employment than purchasing imports. If one of these producers is lost for good, then the jobs are not coming back. All major North American car companies have been profitable in the past, some of their present problems have to with major money constraints related to contract agreements as well.
Also, when you say "sub standard" are you just repeating the cliche that cars built here are all awful? Is that cliche alone an argument for allowing large numbers of people to be put out of work permanently?
My first point was that you can't clinically say 25b in handouts saves 2.5m jobs, or whatever.
The Big 3 are going to have to carry out massive layoffs regardless.
And what cliche? I think the Big 3s performance over the past years has proved, quite definitively, that N. American consumers don't like their cars.
The Big 3, or their supporters, have to come up with a better selling point than "buy our cars or you are unpatriotic."
They systematically burned away decades of consumer goodwill throughout the 80s & 90s.
Most of my friends had bought GM cars since the 1950s because of that tripe. By the 1990s, they had gotten sick and tired of their Impalas falling apart and switched to Camries.
If GM can't sell it's cars, it is its fault. I don't remember Sony roasting it's non-customers over not buying BetaMax players.
Where was I saying this?
There are many ways to provide aid to ailing manufacturers.
That's happened in the past. The economy and the companies recovered and then employed more people once again. However, if one or more of those automobile companies fail, then they won't be hiring anyone again, will they? Nor will their many parts suppliers who provide in the range of seventy percent of the actual automobile. Then there are the steel, aluminum and plastic producers who will see loss of business and loss of jobs.
If it's so definitive as you claim, can you explain why North American manufacturers still sell millions of cars?
I must read different automobile advertising than you because I'm having a hard time identifying any car company building an entire campaign built on "buy our cars or you are unpatriotic" as you assert.
The numbers of car brands available to buyers has gone up since the 1970's. It was inevitable that more choice would dilute brand loyalty. Quality of all manufacturers has also increased since the 1980's. You just don't see anything as lousy as what was often available in the 1970's.
We all have our anecdotal evidence. As for my last German engineered road sedan, it was just not a great car. It featured expensive parts and many visits to the dealer for servicing. The recalls and warnings were never advertised in the press like those for North American manufacturers. My brother noted the same thing for his Toyota.
Speaking of Toyota, it's once vaunted position of quality has been diminished - not only here but abroad as well. It's saving grace is good service response, but that does not take away from a drop in its manufacturing quality.
An odd comparison for you to be making as Beta was considered to be the superior technology.
Not true at all. GM, Ford and Chrysler produce each produce approximately a million cars a year in North America (USA, Canada, Mexico). Even though sales are down now, N. American consumers have been buying plenty of big 3 cars.I think the Big 3s performance over the past years has proved, quite definitively, that N. American consumers don't like their cars. That isn't a cliche, that is reality.
If you can't even suggest how many jobs gov't money will "save", there is no way you can create anything approaching a cost benefit model.
If you can't realistically suggest how many jobs will be saved, what is you're argument?
What if Obama & the US ties all of it's loans to "made in the USA" clauses, and the Big 3 shut down their Canadian branches just to comply? What if the US outsubsidizes us (as they most definitely can) and just sucks up all of the Big 3 branches like that? What if the UAW proves more flexible in wage concessions than the CAW, and most of the Big 3 branches move to Kentucky? What if resource prices spike and the dollar goes back to par, ruining the entire case of manufacturing cars for export in Canada? Maybe the better question is what do you know? So far it's just that GM is a big company and ipso facto it deserves as much government money as it can suck up.
I can't think of many other times when governments start handing out cash to failing businesses just to do something.
Why not subsidize the forestry sector in Ontario?
Or what about the Mr. Sub that just closed down the street from me?
Why not Nortel?
Why should Mom & Pop's Gadget emporium have to bail out GM just because GM has an army of high priced lobbiests and a good number of MPs/MPPs/Congressman in it's pocket?
Not true at all. GM, Ford and Chrysler produce each produce approximately a million cars a year in North America (USA, Canada, Mexico). Even though sales are down now, N. American consumers have been buying plenty of big 3 cars.
Not true at all. GM, Ford and Chrysler produce each produce approximately a million cars a year in North America (USA, Canada, Mexico). Even though sales are down now, N. American consumers have been buying plenty of big 3 cars.
Yea, they produce a million cars a year, but how many of those cars are actually sold? People are not buying their vehicles, yet they continue to produce them - it makes no sense.
Not to mention they pay their workers $40/hr to put in a damn screw into a vehicle.
I know many people who have switched from GM/Ford/Chrysler to Mazda's and Honda's. They are much more realiable and fairly priced.
If you think otherwise, you are in denial. The big 3 are struggling because there is no interest in their vehicles. It's as simple as that.
My argument is quite simply that it makes little to no sense to throw money at the Big 3 on the sole logic that a.)they are big and b.)they are in precarious position...
So far, the only responses I got was that I am "prejudiced" against GM for not wanting to forkover billions in tax money
I think the Big 3s performance over the past years has proved, quite definitively, that N. American consumers don't like their cars.
As to the fairness of proposed subsidies, did I get an answer?
Like most people, I've lost more money than I can count. Why will you "allow me to fail"? This is a pretty open ended question.
Yea, they produce a million cars a year, but how many of those cars are actually sold? People are not buying their vehicles, yet they continue to produce them - it makes no sense.
Not to mention they pay their workers $40/hr to put in a damn screw into a vehicle.
I know many people who have switched from GM/Ford/Chrysler to Mazda's and Honda's. They are much more realiable and fairly priced.
If you think otherwise, you are in denial. The big 3 are struggling because there is no interest in their vehicles. It's as simple as that.
Regardless of build quality, not all Japanese makes are successful in Noth America. The mediocre selling and bland cars coming out of Mitsubishi are a good example. Isuzu Motors completely withdrew from the North American market in January 2008 due to poor sales. Anyone remember Daihatsu USA, which shut down its operations in the USA in the early 1990s due to poor sales.Also, that blanket statement, repeated ad nausea, that Japanese cars are more reliable is bunk. They are about equal. Mazda and Nissan are decidedly middle of the road. Honda and Toyota are above average.