[ShonTron]

Also, Chrysler has no market share outside of North America, while Ford has a respectable European presence, and Buicks are very popular in China. Daimler cherrypicked all the good brands, and even took some of the North American truck and bus industry. Orion, that manufacturer of questionable buses, is a Daimler brand.

 

[Hydrogen]

Technically that's fascism.

There is quite a bit more to fascism than this. If this is your measure, then Canada is fascist as well.

 

[adma]

A GM-Chrysler merger, and the end result might be worthy of Ford

if you get my drift.

 

[ShonTron]

Adma,

I was thinking something more bloated and costly:

 

[Dichotomy]

It's not design per se. What they lack is foresight. What is happening now is a re-run of the 70's. The [Japanese] stuck to fuel efficieint cars while the yanks pumped out mini-tanks. When OPEC struck, the Japanese gained a massive natural advantage with their product. Apparently, the big three didn't learn from that era. Corporate Average Fuel Economy actually declined through the 90s. And now in the era of high fuel prices they are playing catch up again. It's not design. What they lack is foresight, long-term planning and steady leadership that looks beyond the next quarter.

As to their status as a defence supplier, GM hardly provides anything of value to the US military and security services that could not be procured elsewhere. There was a time when they were the preferred automotive supplier, but that era has passed. They are not critical to the security of the United States. General Dynamics maybe, but not General Motors.

Lots of false assumptions here, sorry.

First of all, you have to have manufacturing plants to convert to tank/weapons production in a time of war. When Detroit turned to munitions production in 1942, there is no way in hell the Axis powers stood a chance. If all those plants are foreign owned, where will the Americans get their weapons from? China? Japan?

Secondly, a lot of what has happened to Detroit in the past 20 years has more to do with the yuppie mentality than the oil shocks of the '70s. Just read the car magazines. They gush over 240 hp minivans and hype everything to the next level. These are guys who base their opinions of Detroit on their mother's '82 Citation and their opinions of Japan Inc on the '91 Civic they owned in college. It's the culture of entitlement run amok
Interestingly, GM builds more vehicles that get more than 30 mpg than either Toyota or Honda, but who has the 'greener' image?

It's the not caring about your neighbor's job because you want to drive an Audi that has killed Detroit. GM is gaining market share in virtually every market, except North America, and Japan. Why is that?

 

[Whoaccio]

America is into big time socialism when it benefits large corporations. Technically that's fascism. A matter of fact, even in good years you can get all kinds of freebies for corporations.

I believe that is good old fashioned corporatism. where government labor and industry merge into one unholy monster.

Adma,

I was thinking something more bloated and costly:

Soft like a nerfball, powerful like a gorilla.

 

[Dichotomy]

America is into big time socialism when it benefits large corporations. Technically that's fascism. A matter of fact, even in good years you can get all kinds of freebies for corporations. You can incorporate a small business, get all kinds of free capital flowing, bankrupt the whole thing without even trying and take the extra cash for yourself.... and be considered an honorable, God fearin', patriotic American. But government money going to benefit individuals is tantamount to evil.

On another note, who in their right mind would WANT Chrysler with all its baggage, outdated vehicle technology, and problems?

Any extra cash they may have will be burned through in GM and the baggage left will create even more problems for them.

Are you kidding me? Japan Inc has kept an artificially low yen for decades, big corporation in Japan can borrow at 0% (on the backs of hapless consumers) and Jim Press (who built Toyota in North America but defected to Chrysler 2 years ago - hmmm, I wonder why?) has admitted that the Japanese government handed the synergy drive to Toyota on a silver platter.

No, no, no - if Washington steps into the fray and 'helps' Detroit, maybe - just maybe, this will level the playing field a little.

 

[Whoaccio]

Are you kidding me? Japan Inc has kept an artificially low yen for decades, big corporation in Japan can borrow at 0% (on the backs of hapless consumers) and Jim Press (who built Toyota in North America but defected to Chrysler 2 years ago - hmmm, I wonder why?) has admitted that the Japanese government handed the synergy drive to Toyota on a silver platter.

You keep saying this as though it is a good thing. Japan is a fiscal and economic basket case, precisely because of it's obsession with autarky. The 90s were a wash, and now they are shaping up for another decade of stagnation. Their consumers are royally screwed. So what if Toyota is doing well? Japan isn't. There is no reason for them to subsidize their rice crops 500%, no need to maintain a parallel cellular network to keep out foreigners and no need to prop up its auto sector.

And why an island nation with no natural resources would think that autarky is a good idea is beyond me...

 

[Brandon716]

I'm not against government helping American auto business so long as rules are followed, but auto makers have a problem following fuel economy laws or other standards set forth.

 

[Conrad Black]

First of all, you have to have manufacturing plants to convert to tank/weapons production in a time of war. When Detroit turned to munitions production in 1942, there is no way in hell the Axis powers stood a chance. If all those plants are foreign owned, where will the Americans get their weapons from? China? Japan?

Those plants can easily be nationalized if there is a need to have them build weapons rather than passenger cars.

 

[Dichotomy]

You keep saying this as though it is a good thing. Japan is a fiscal and economic basket case, precisely because of it's obsession with autarky. The 90s were a wash, and now they are shaping up for another decade of stagnation. Their consumers are royally screwed. So what if Toyota is doing well? Japan isn't. There is no reason for them to subsidize their rice crops 500%, no need to maintain a parallel cellular network to keep out foreigners and no need to prop up its auto sector.

And why an island nation with no natural resources would think that autarky is a good idea is beyond me...

I never suggested it is a good thing; hence my using the term 'hapless consumers.' For good reasons, Japan is a paranoid nation and (unlike us) they will stick together for the greater good - or whatever perceived good they are spoon fed. However, under the now disbanded MITI, Japan Inc used what little resources they had to batter targeted markets. First, the electronics (successful), then tool & die (mixed results) and then the auto sector (jury still out.)
I am not saying we should emulate them, only that I have a grudging respect for their determination.

 

[kEiThZ]

First of all, you have to have manufacturing plants to convert to tank/weapons production in a time of war. When Detroit turned to munitions production in 1942, there is no way in hell the Axis powers stood a chance. If all those plants are foreign owned, where will the Americans get their weapons from? China? Japan?

You are confusing the defence industrial base with being a defence supplier. It does not matter who builds the stuff as long as it is built in the USA. So Toyota could produce vehicles for the US military just as easily as Ford or Chrysler. And if they refuse in a crisis, I am sure there are provisions that can be made to nationalize these plants in the name of national security. As it stands, the companies are not major defence suppliers and since their capital would not be leaving the USA, the defence industrial base would not be threatened.

Secondly, a lot of what has happened to Detroit in the past 20 years has more to do with the yuppie mentality than the oil shocks of the '70s. Just read the car magazines. They gush over 240 hp minivans and hype everything to the next level. These are guys who base their opinions of Detroit on their mother's '82 Citation and their opinions of Japan Inc on the '91 Civic they owned in college. It's the culture of entitlement run amok
Interestingly, GM builds more vehicles that get more than 30 mpg than either Toyota or Honda, but who has the 'greener' image?

Sure Detroit builds plenty of cars with mileage greater than 30 mpg. But which ones do they sell? And when did they start putting the emphasis on these vehicles? And the recent efforts do not account for the drop in CAFE through the 90s. There's a reason the Civic became the college car of choice. The Japanese automakers had the foresight to target college kids, singles, etc with fuel sipping cars. Their reward has been loyalty. Find me a fuel sipping American car from the 90s on par with a Civic or Corolla.

It's the not caring about your neighbor's job because you want to drive an Audi that has killed Detroit. GM is gaining market share in virtually every market, except North America, and Japan. Why is that?

They are gaining market share in large part because of their foreign brands and sales of vehicles built outside NA. How is it my fault, if big three don't build something I want to buy? They were making out like bandits with SUVs in the 90s. Now its the fault of the citizenry because they failed to adjust to the new reality?

As for my neighbour's job, if his union has been negotiating pay raises and avoiding productivity raises that have bankrupted his employer, how is that my fault?

 

[Dichotomy]

You are confusing the defence industrial base with being a defence supplier. It does not matter who builds the stuff as long as it is built in the USA. So Toyota could produce vehicles for the US military just as easily as Ford or Chrysler. And if they refuse in a crisis, I am sure there are provisions that can be made to nationalize these plants in the name of national security. As it stands, the companies are not major defence suppliers and since their capital would not be leaving the USA, the defence industrial base would not be threatened.

You are assuming that there will be ANY manufacturing here, should Japan Inc win. The only reason they bothered to build factories here was to avoid the union-organized backlash that happened in the early '80s. Should Ford and/or GM fail, what's to stop the rest of the manufacturers from shuttering their North American plants, too? Toyota has already wound down its 1.3 billion dollar truck plant in Texas and is re-thinking its new Woodstock plant, due to changing market conditions. They have 'free' healthcare in Japan and are a lot less exposed to pension/healthcare issues.

Sure Detroit builds plenty of cars with mileage greater than 30 mpg. But which ones do they sell? And when did they start putting the emphasis on these vehicles? And the recent efforts do not account for the drop in CAFE through the 90s. There's a reason the Civic became the college car of choice. The Japanese automakers had the foresight to target college kids, singles, etc with fuel sipping cars. Their reward has been loyalty. Find me a fuel sipping American car from the 90s on par with a Civic or Corolla.

FYI, the Cobalt/G5 twins are the #2 selling vehicles in Canada right now. GM has had to add a 3rd shift in its plant to keep up with demand. The newly redesigned Aveo/G3 are now being built in Mexico, at an all new plant, to keep up with demand, as the Korean plants now focus on Europe and Asia. The Chevy Astra is the #1 selling small car in Europe.
Google Toyota Tacoma and see all about Toyota quality. Dealers are quietly buying up the Tacomas because the frames are SNAPPING in half. The FRAMES. The strongest part of the truck. Even Consumers Reports finally issued an apology last year, after problems with the V6 Camry, Avalon and Tundra forced them to admit that in the past they have given Toyota a free pass on the quality front. When GM farts, it is on the front page; when Toyota has diarrhea, it's buried int he business section.

They are gaining market share in large part because of their foreign brands and sales of vehicles built outside NA. How is it my fault, if big three don't build something I want to buy? They were making out like bandits with SUVs in the 90s. Now its the fault of the citizenry because they failed to adjust to the new reality?

Nobody failed to adjust to any reality. Wall Street is very unforgiving. Toyota and Honda do not have to answer to Wall Street. What marketing planner could have made a business case for the Aveo in 2000 when GM and Ford were building every truck they could. Interestingly, the Cavalier/Sunfire outsold everything, including the Civic, right up until their cancellation in 2005

As for my neighbour's job, if his union has been negotiating pay raises and avoiding productivity raises that have bankrupted his employer, how is that my fault?

Not your fault, but blogger sites like UT exist for those who want to dig beneath the headlines, because the media is jaded and biased. People will walk around with the Consumers Reports like it is the bible. Mark Richardson of the Toyota Star and I have tangled on a few occasions for their obvious bias. WardsAuto.com did a wonderful piece in April '06, entitled Tyranny of the Enthusiasts, which illustrates the point exactly: Road and Track, Motor Trend and others have been setting the tone for decades: their clear disdain for economy cars succeeded in convincing consumers that we 'need' 300 horsepower minivans. So now the chattering class in Rosedale buy BMWs and poo-pooh Cadillacs. I sincerely hope they are among the first to lose their jobs in this upcoming economic disaster.

 

[Glen]

The media is also complacent in perpetuating the myth that Japanese and even European cars are more reliable. Yet that is not the case. I laughed at a friend of mine whom would not buy a NA auto because they weren't reliable so she bought a Rover LR3 (probably the most unreliable new vehicle).

 

[unimaginative2]

I owned a Toyota Camry for five years and did not have a single problem with it. Not one. My parents also owned a string of Camrys (and an Accord) and once again did not have a single problem with any of them. They sold most of them to relatives, who also marvel at how they have not had a single problem. From my standpoint, that's a pretty unimpeachable record. Other cars that family members have owned include a Volvo (fair, but a lot of small issues), Mercedes (same thing, and very expensive to fix), Saturn (good, no problems in three years), Ford (appalling), and a string of Chryslers (incredibly appalling). My parents used to always buy Chryslers, enduring an endless string of maintenance problems. One overheated on pretty much every steep hill. They finally gave up after the entire car started sparking and the entire electrical system died while they were driving on a road trip. Even the locks didn't work, and they would have been trapped inside if they hadn't been lucky enough to have a window open. Unfortunately for the Big 3, a car is a huge investment and a lot of people just won't go back after having been burned so many times.

I think a lot of the problems with American and European cars is their tendency to add a lot of trouble-prone gadgets. The Camry has really pretty basic technology when it comes down to it, but it's obvious that they don't put anything into those cars that hasn't been perfected.