GM on the critical list

[BigGary]

I hope you took the time to read all that Peter and Art had to say. He got it. The fundamental problem for any manufacturer/industry is making what the customers want. Whenever they get away from that, problems start. The auto industry should have been in good shape at the end of WWII but they needed time to start up again from making, trucks, airplanes, tanks, etc.

Art mentioned the near failure of Chrysler in the late 70's. Once again, mis-directed priorities. When Lee Iacco took over and got them back on track and paid the loans early, he did it by following the cardinal rule: Make what the people want! The K cars were a huge success, followed by the wildly successful minivan that has been part of Chrysler's profitability since then. The purchase of AMC and Jeep was a coup unmatched. Until the Daimler Chrysler merger it was doing fairly well.

Partial blame for the failures of the auto industry can be laid at two doorsteps: UAW and federal emission regs driven by the environmentalist wackos.

Presently only about 30-40% of Americans believe climate change is man-made, yet the Al Gore types would have you believe that it is unanimous. The automobile is the most regulated product in the US. The EPA keeps making more and more demands upon the factories and offering no funds for development. Politicians are more interested in making big donors happy than using common sense.

The increasing demands of Unions have also hurt the auto industry. They used to shut factories down for weeks at a time. Now the fear of a long strike makes the auto industry give in rather than fighting. Union membership now is only about 11%, but Obama and his buds are wanting to change that to more like 90% with recent legislation that would take the secret ballot out of the voting process for unionization. This would drive up the cost of everything and hurt sales. In an ailing economy the result would be further finacial disaster that the Unions would blame the manufacturers for.

Gary

Edited November 12, 2008 by BigGary

[Harry P.]

Partial blame for the failures of the auto industry can be laid at two doorsteps: UAW and federal emission regs driven by the environmentalist wackos.

Gary

The "environmentalist wackos"?

Is it "wacky" to expect to be able to breathe clean air and drink clean water? Is that really such a ridiculous expectation?

All the other carmakers that sell here in the US must meet the same regulations. Why can't GM?

[58 Impala]

I hate to see the big 3 in such dire straits, but that is a result of three things. 1.) The unions are bleeding the car companies dry (average wages are between $45 to $75 an hour) plus all the benefits and all the retired workers. 2.)The arogance and corporate greed. 3.) And the last reason is just plain simple, they build junk. They design some good looking cars (Corvette,Camaro,Mustang,Charger,Challenger etc.) but the quality and fit and finish of the cars are junk.

Now before anyone goes off on me, I have owned Chevys, Fords, Buicks. I have also owned VW's,Audi,Honda,Nissan. The older American cars I've owned were great (2 Impalas 65&71, 69 Chevelle), but the newer ones have all had problems (trim,mechanical,paint, rust). My dad and my grandfather were loyal Chevy owners. Back in the 50's and the 60's we built good looking durable cars, and there was severe brand loyalty.

When you went to go buy a new car you usually went back with same brand because you had good luck and alot of servicable miles with little or no problems. Today such a thing is non exsistant. I currently drive a 97 Crown Vic, mechanically it has been a pretty good car, but it had a couple of poor design flaws that were very expensive to fix. It has 105,000 miles on it and I hope it gives me a few more servicable miles.

But the several imports I have owned have given me few if any problems. The quality of design and build, also the attention to detail have been great.

We have the ability to design and build cars of equal or better quality, but we lost our way somewhere. I think the American car companies have gone from confidence to arrogance, and I think this going to be the reason for their demise.

[Peter Lombardo]

Harry, I think you are a little too sensitive with your strong defense of the “Radical Environmentalists†who are helping to kill our economy. Sure I want clean air to breathe. I just think we have a larger problem. Think of our economy like it’s an accident victim wheeled into the Emergency Room with serious internal bleeding and a broken leg. We need to stabilize the internal bleeding (destruction of our economic base) before we concern our self with the broken leg (environmental concern). The leg must get fixed and reset, but not until the patient has survived the most serious threat to its survival.

An effective manager knows how to prioritize the issues facing his company or country. If the economy and the automobile industry is a major component of it, is not fixed and set right, the air we breathe will be of little concern while you are standing on the unemployment line. The Environmentalists have effectively blocked the exploration of new crude oil sources. Sure, no one cares today because the gas at the pump price is at or below $2.00. I guarantee it will rise again, and soon. One interruption to supply, or one misstep in the Middle East, and bang, its $4.00 at the pump overnight. Then what?

We must think progressively with our economy and be concerned with getting out of this mess. Government got us here, forcing banks to write loans that could not be repaid. They stopped the real exploration of oil and they are doing more damage with the continued restrictions to business and bail out schemes.

China, and India burn tons of coal and pollute the ###### out of the air. Their economy will not be put on hold because of radical environmentalist. Two or three wrongs do not make a right. Bad behavior should not be copied, but, and you can quote me on this, the American economy is on life support….quick call in a priest, and get ready to administer last rights…..IT IS JUST THAT BAD. Today the Dow is at 8,465 as I write this and headed down even more….three months ago it was just off a high of 14,000. This time I fear Chicken Little may be right….The sky may be falling.

If our survival depends on relaxing some of the environmental controls, I know which side of that argument I come down on.

[parktonplastic]

I've been hearing about GM for the last month or so a LOT on NPR. Today they mentioned that GM's share price is down to 1943 - as in WWII - levels. Scary. Part of me thinks, "Well, they've had it coming", but really, NOone truly wants GM to fail. Cars and history aside, it would be just an enormous loss in terms of jobs and the economy.

Well it looks like the Big Three might become the Big Two or the Big One or the Big None.

But… I have a plan to save the American Auto Industry!

As I understand it, right now the US Governments plan is to give a whole bunch of money to the car companies, but what are they going to do with it? Pay the big salaries of the executives??

My approach:

Give the money that was proposed to go to the Auto Companies and give it to the American Public.

Here is my idea:

The US Government would pay half the cost of a new vehicle made by one of the Big Three, if you, the American Public would buy a new American car.

This would be a one-time deal, and only for a vehicle made by GM, Ford or Chrysler.

It would move inventories from dealer lots, would keep car dealers in business, at least for a while, and keep the auto industry suppliers in business. Also: if the new cars needed parts, that would be future sales for the parts stores.

Just my idea, but unless the rate was something wild like 50%, I’m not sure I’d jump at buying a new car, but 50% off the cost? That gets my attention right now.

[Harry P.]

I think that in our capitalist-based economic system, any company that can't make a profit should be left to fail, period. That's just how capitalism works! You can't be a fan of the capitalistic system when times are good, then jump ship and become a socialist when times are tough.

If the government is now in the bailout game, where does it end? If AIG, Lehman Bros., et al, and GM (and maybe Ford and Chrysler) can be "bailed out" courtesy of Joe and Jane Sixpack, where does it end??? If Big Bob's House o' Char can't sell enough burgers to pay the rent, do they stick out their hand and feed at the government trough too? Why not? If it's ok for some companies to be given a free handout, why not ok for all??? See where this bailout mentality will lead to?

There will always be a demand for cars in this country. If a GM goes out of business, you can bet that new "GMs" will arise to take their place and fill the void. These new companies will be leaner and more productive and competitive... they'll have to be, if they want to play in the global market. I really don't think it's in our country's best interest, in the long term, to continue to artificially keep failing companies on life support... that's simply NOT how our system is supposed to work!

Granted, government played a big role in the financial/mortgage mess. Barney Frank and his buddies in the finance committee literally forced banks to underwrite loans that everyone knew couldn't be repaid, in a misguided attempt to open up home ownership opportunities to those who really couldn't afford to buy. Good intention, maybe, but bad result! So maybe in that sense, the failing financial institutions do deserve some sort of government help... at least to some extent. But the carmakers? Why??? Should they be rewarded for bad judgement and poor planning with free money courtesy of you and me??? My vote is a big fat NO!

And finally, as one of those "wacko" environmentalists, let me say this: I'd rather see a corporate giant like GM go under and be able to breathe the air, than remove emissions standards just so they can save a few bucks per vehicle. Loosening environmental standards may help GM, but keeping those standards high benefits ALL of us, now and down the road... it even benefits those of you who think keeping the environment sound is a poor business decision!

[Harry P.]

And while I'm on my soapbox, one last point and I'll shut up...

Here's an idea: Instead of pumping BILLIONS of our dollars into a failing company in a misguided attempt to "save" our auto industry, why not do this instead: let the marketplace decide the fate of GM, and take that bailout money and immediately put it into a fast-track program to build wind farms, solar collector facilities, and expansion of hydrogen-powered cars and trucks. Put that money to use by investing in our country's future, not its past! Then take all those ex-GM employees, and millions of other Americans currently out of work, and let them fill all of the thousands of new job openings that will be created by expanding new technologies.

Does that plan make sense? You bet it does. And that's why it'll never happen.

[guysmilie]

This may sound bad but bankruptcy could be the best thing for GM, they could loose the Unions (I expect UAW to be no more after all of this). drop money loosing brands (IE Hummer, Saturn, and Buick). and completely rebuild there dealer network. They need to sell Saab. They need to get back too there roots. have each brand have its own Identity. Chevrolet's can be entry level cars and trucks. then Pontiac, then Cadillac. and have GMC be fleet only.

I'm currently looking for a new car and I have literally have been yelled at because I not considering any American cars. I'm looking at a Scion tC, Mazda 3, VW Jetta, and a Subaru WRX. My only must is a manual transmission so that crosses a lot of cars off my list.

Completely off topic, but go with the Mazda3, I was looking for a new car about a year ago and looked at the exact same line up you are now, and went with the 3 because it holds it's value and is a very quality piece. I have had mine for just over a year now and have 43,000mile on mine(yes i drive a lot) and it still feels as tight as the day I drove it off the showroom floor. Edited November 12, 2008 by guysmilie

[parktonplastic]

I think that in our capitalist-based economic system, any company that can't make a profit should be left to fail, period. That's just how capitalism works! You can't be a fan of the capitalistic system when times are good, then jump ship and become a socialist when times are tough.

If the government is now in the bailout game, where does it end? If AIG, Lehman Bros., et al, and GM (and maybe Ford and Chrysler) can be "bailed out" courtesy of Joe and Jane Sixpack, where does it end??? If Big Bob's House o' Char can't sell enough burgers to pay the rent, do they stick out their hand and feed at the government trough too? Why not? If it's ok for some companies to be given a free handout, why not ok for all??? See where this bailout mentality will lead to?

There will always be a demand for cars in this country. If a GM goes out of business, you can bet that new "GMs" will arise to take their place and fill the void. These new companies will be leaner and more productive and competitive... they'll have to be, if they want to play in the global market. I really don't think it's in our country's best interest, in the long term, to continue to artificially keep failing companies on life support... that's simply NOT how our system is supposed to work!

Granted, government played a big role in the financial/mortgage mess. Barney Frank and his buddies in the finance committee literally forced banks to underwrite loans that everyone knew couldn't be repaid, in a misguided attempt to open up home ownership opportunities to those who really couldn't afford to buy. Good intention, maybe, but bad result! So maybe in that sense, the failing financial institutions do deserve some sort of government help... at least to some extent. But the carmakers? Why??? Should they be rewarded for bad judgement and poor planning with free money courtesy of you and me??? My vote is a big fat NO!

And finally, as one of those "wacko" environmentalists, let me say this: I'd rather see a corporate giant like GM go under and be able to breathe the air, than remove emissions standards just so they can save a few bucks per vehicle. Loosening environmental standards may help GM, but keeping those standards high benefits ALL of us, now and down the road... it even benefits those of you who think keeping the environment sound is a poor business decision!

another 2cents from me:

if the US doesn't 'bail' the auto industry, then who will line the pockets of BIG OIL? It won't be the fuel-efficient imports, and without big trucks and SUV's, etc, how long until Big Oil wants even more money? How much money is given in the form of subsidies to the energy companies to develop new sources? is it necessary? possibly, but if they were not offered, maybe other energy sources would start up, etc but I do agree on the solar, wind, etc. forms of energy - energy we don't have to protect shipments to get it to our markets. TESLA Motors? the next Big One?

Jeff

[Peter Lombardo]

A few months ago, during a discussion on the forum about high fuel prices, I clearly explained that I was in favor of environmental controls, and still am. I have seen the evidence of the effect of hydrocarbon pollution on the environment, so I agree it is a concern. The automobile manufacturers have lived up to their responsibility for the most part as emissions have been tremendously improved.

But now, I fear the situation has changed dramatically. Harry, I agree with your statement that the others conform and compete, why can’t our auto builders? The US builders cannot be profitable building small cars because of the high cost of labor, brought about by the union’s demands. The imports can do it, but not the domestics at this time. GM was making money building big SUV’s and pickups, not with economy cars. Now if GM is allowed to declare chapter 11, they could start over and renegotiate the deal with the unions, which is just another reason why I am against the bail out. We need to let GM try and become competitive rather than bail them out and allow the union to keep their unreasonable demands.

Like I keep saying, this is a big worldwide mess that our government caused and our businesses need to work out of it on their own. Government is not the cure, they are the problem, and with an all Democrat Washington, we are in for a hard time.

I do kind of like the idea of 50% off to by American, it would never happen for more reasons than I have time to list here, but it is a unique and outside of the box way of thinking.

[Harry P.]

ok, I promised I'd shut up, but Jeff brings up a point that really gets me steamed: Why, oh why, does the US government on one hand give subsidies to oil companies to "encourage" them to expand exploration, while on the other hand prohibiting them from doing that very same exploration? Can anyone explain that to me???

And why do we give the oil companies subsidies, tax breaks, etc. at all??? Exxon/Mobil continuously breaks their own record for largest quarterly profits EVER in the history of the world. Don't you think they make enough money on their own, without giving them some of mine and yours on top of it???

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrgghhh!!!!!!!!

[Harry P.]

Harry, I agree with your statement that the others conform and compete, why can’t our auto builders? The US builders cannot be profitable building small cars because of the high cost of labor, brought about by the union’s demands.

No, not by the union's demands... by the carmakers acceptance of those demands! When the BIG THREE ruled the roost, they thought that they'd never have competition. Times were good, and it was easy to give in to the union demands, just to keep the peace and keep those assembly lines rolling.

That, in hindsight, was very shortsighted thinking by the Big Three. Well, they've made their beds, as the saying goes... now they should have to lay in it.

[old-hermit]

Money runs this country and the golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules".

I don't have any gold and I ain't never been one for following the rules so guess it's time to look for a beach hut in Guam.

I hear the south pacific is nice this time of year.

[parktonplastic]

ok, I promised I'd shut up, but Jeff brings up a point that really gets me steamed: Why, oh why, does the US government on one hand give subsidies to oil companies to "encourage" them to expand exploration, while on the other hand prohibiting them from doing that very same exploration? Can anyone explain that to me???

And why do we give the oil companies subsidies, tax breaks, etc. at all??? Exxon/Mobil continuously breaks their own record for largest quarterly profits EVER in the history of the world. Don't you think they make enough money on their own, without giving them some of mine and yours on top of it???

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrgghhh!!!!!!!!

Hi again,

I don't want to step on toes here, but one thing I've heard about the oil exploration: Big Oil already has millions of acres in which to explore for oil/ gas; but the reason they are not going in right now: the drilling rigs are at a 10 year back-log for work - there just isnt enough rigs to go look. if there is that much money in oil/gas why isn't anyone funding hte building of new drilling rigs? with that said, I think our country should be investing in alternative sources of energy big time. America has as possibly our best value - innovation and invention. why should'nt we be the ones the figure out cheaper, safer, more environmnetall friendly souces of energy? If we have cheaper sources of energy - that would possibly be the best thing for our economy. whell except for ExMo...

Thanks for hearing me rant,

Jeff

[Harry P.]

If we have cheaper sources of energy - that would possibly be the best thing for our economy. whell except for ExMo...

Thanks for hearing me rant,

Jeff

Not only do we have cheaper sources of energy... we have FREE sources of energy!!!

Why aren't we spending billions building wind farms and solar collectors instead of throwing that money at failing businesses???

Why aren't we putting thousands of people to work in new jobs building wind turbines, solar collection facilities, infrastructure, etc? Why are we instead spending our tax dollars propping up old, failed companies running on old, failed business models instead of investing in our future and making use of the vast sources of FREE, unlimited energy that we could be tapping into? Why???

[Modelmartin]

My thoughts are that the American car companies failed because of three things - product, product, product. Bad design, bad quality, behind the curve. I feel bad for people who don't know enough about cars and still buy GM and Chrysler products. People will always need cars - let GM fail! We will buy good cars made by other companies who have figured out how! I believe a lot of our production has moved to Canada and Mexico anyway to escape wage and health insurance issues.

As far as our economic system we are a variation of capitalism. Fascism- where the government serves the corporate interests and not the people's interest. The corporations run the government. Look up the definition! Fascism is often confused with totalitarianism which we are not so far.

I don't believe the CAFE standards have been raised for several decades. Emissions standards haven't changed much either. But these standards made Detroit and the other car companies come up with more efficient, longer lasting, BETTER engines then they would have on their own. How come Honda's engines meet California's ULEV standards which were meant for electric cars! They now have a hydrogen car in production! (It is losing money but that will change with time).

Detroit! Anyone home?

Andy

[old-hermit]

Not only do we have cheaper sources of energy... we have FREE sources of energy!!!

Why aren't we spending billions building wind farms and solar collectors instead of throwing that money at failing businesses???

Why aren't we putting thousands of people to work in new jobs building wind turbines, solar collection facilities, infrastructure, etc? Why are we instead spending our tax dollars propping up old, failed companies running on old, failed business models instead of investing in our future and making use of the vast sources of FREE, unlimited energy that we could be tapping into? Why???

Because there ain't no profit in "FREE" Harry.

.

[Art Anderson]

Not only do we have cheaper sources of energy... we have FREE sources of energy!!!

Why aren't we spending billions building wind farms and solar collectors instead of throwing that money at failing businesses???

Why aren't we putting thousands of people to work in new jobs building wind turbines, solar collection facilities, infrastructure, etc? Why are we instead spending our tax dollars propping up old, failed companies running on old, failed business models instead of investing in our future and making use of the vast sources of FREE, unlimited energy that we could be tapping into? Why???

Harry,

At the risk of making you mad, there ARE thousands of people at work building wind turbines, AND solar collectors--here in little ol' flyover Indiana, those big propellors on posts are the talk in many a cafe every morning, over coffee, and in places in the Southwest, solar panel fields are going up, but guess what? NIMBY is already at work there as well. NIMBY you ask? Not In My Back Yard is a real rallying cry. Outside of the midwest corn/wheat belt, many, if not most of the best wind corridors are in scenic places, such as the mountains of New England, along the coastline, and horror of horrors, we "just can't compromise the beautiful landscape". But, I digress. Wind farms, with their advantage of producing electricity with no input from the burning of any fossil fuel, no nuclear fission, are one of the most sensible things to come along since the invention of the windmill by the Dutch centuries ago--air's still free, there's still no charge for wind, no way to put a meter on that stuff, I suppose. However, since the thrust of all this thread isn't electricity in general, let's go back to cars, and the stuff that makes them go. (besides, it would take a pretty long extension cord to power most automobiles--battery technology isn't quite there just yet).

The gist of what I wrote above is that the problems faced by GM, Ford, and Chrysler are pretty much of the making of "all of us", as opposed to any one person, group of people, or entity being ultimately responsible. As the old, legendary cartoon character, "Pogo" once observed, "We have met the enemy, and they is us". We all want (fill in the blank here), but we all seem to want someone else to "pay the piper". It's interesting that it's so politically popular, even politically correct to blame such as Exxon Mobil for all our troubles, but what about say, the farmer, who might have a million dollar corn crop (not all that hard to believe, given the size of those large farms you see when you get away from your Windy City and its environs. If something comes along which raises the value of that 250,000 bushels of harvested corn, say by double--and the world goes nuts--the price of cornflakes is going to rise, not to mention the cost of a steak, a hamburger, a porkchop, or a pound of bacon. Eggs, milk, yup, same thing. However, if Farmer Smith doesn't see a serious value in planting more corn next year, he's not going to plant it, pure and simple--he's going to scale back, either plant some fields in something else, or just let some land go fallow for the season, concentrating on his best fields, the ones that give the best yield for the work and $$ put in--that is Business 101. Same with drilling for oil--sure there are hundreds, probably thousands of square miles of drilling leases out there across this country--but how viable are they? Were drilling for black gold always a sure thing, there would have been no problem--just poke a hole in the ground and like Jed Clampit, up it comes, bubblin' up, "Black Gold, Texas Tea". But, not only NIMBY, but people from one region of the country trying to insist that those living in another region toe the line, buckle down and obey what one group is telling another group they must not do, no matter that say, people on the East Coast aren't the people living in say, Alaska, North Dakota, Utah. Were the current crowd alive today, braying as they are about "the environment", I suspect John Deere himself would have been tarred and feathered for daring to make a plow that would break the prairie sod in Illinois, for to grow corn.

It's far easier for us as a people to push the drilling for oil, to make the gasoline which our cars require, off to some remote place, which we see as somehow less valuable, less scenic, be that some "worthless desert" (which I suspect is most people's view of the Middle East), or some remote, tropical area (Venezuela, Indonesia, Brunei, Yucatan come to mind) where the dense tropical rain forest (used to call those jungles, remember) hides the "ugliness" of an oil well), than have them screw up the view from someone's dream home in California, Florida, the coast of the Carolina's--no matter that those areas may have some very productive reserves--or God forbid, Alaska's North Slope (too close to where Santa lives, at the North Pole, I wonder?).

But, it's the failed business models of the US auto industry that are the thrust here. Franklin Roosevelt was one who wondered if the concentration of auto production in the hands of an ever shrinking few companies as was well underway in his time in office was a good thing: Capitalism of course, is the engine that drove the American auto industry to the heights it achieved (along with the first big domestic oil supply in any country in the world), but at the "cost" of survival of the fittest. Over time, there have been over 500 different makes of automobiles produced here in Indiana, far more than in any other political subdivision in the rest of the world--but where are they now? Sure, we have a GM plant (Roanoke), Subaru and Toyota (Lafayette), Toyota (Vandenburgh County down on the Ohio), and a new Honda plant just now coming online in the south eastern part of the state--but not a single one of the former companies who once made cars in Indiana is known today, outside of a museum somewhere. Had there been no post WW-I booming "seller's market", it would have been just Ford, General Motors and Chysler left standing before 1950. Oh, and let us not forget the FOURTH major US automaker of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, the UAW. They fit into this business model as well. It's hard to argue with the success of the UAW, indeed the very need for them to begin with. It was the UAW which brought some sense of order to the often chaotic world of industrial work--they, to their credit, brought about some stability for factory workers heretofore used to constant layoffs for model year changes, often very uncaring working conditions, but even the UAW apparently went too far. A lockstep insistence that a factory stay in one place forever, demands for ever increasing wages, to the point that (and I was being taught this in grade school, Jr High School and High School, 45-50 years ago!) wage costs in this country had risen to the point that few in other parts of the world could afford a consumer product such as an automobile built in the US. It was also argued, vehemently, in the 1950's, that Americans just "NEEDED" smaller, more compact cars--a few makers tried to do just that--Nash, Hudson, Kaiser, Willys, and guess what? Buyers stayed away in droves. Had it not been for the sudden, steep recession of 1957-58, American Motors would not have cleaned the rust and cosmoline off the dies for the then discontinued Nash Rambler, freshened them up a bit, and brought them back as the Rambler American. Small, in the context of that era meant "cheap", less affluent, just as it has with private homes up through this very day (ever try to get someone to buy say, an 1100 square foot ranch style house these days???). So, when a significant number of consumers began looking for less expensive cars in 1958, almost overnight, the only ones extant were cars such as Opel, Vauxhall, Renault, Fiat, Volkswagen, and even then, the market for those was miniscule, only a couple hundred thousand per year.

In the 70's, almost coincidently with the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74, two cars, both extremely prone to rusting to oblivion, went head-to-head for the dollars of American buyers wanting a car that could go from one gas station to the next, able to cruise right on by the dozens of closed gas pumps in between, and not cost an arm and a leg. Vega and Honda Accord were both notorious for rustout troubles early on. But there was a difference! Where the Vega was designed around cost considerations (so much of that neat little car was designed around CHEAP to make), the Accord was designed around excellent design. GM seemingly just did not care that their little, fuel efficient car wasn't at all what it was made out to be, and zone managers looked to their "budget" when considering repairs to nearly brand new cars, while Honda graciously replaced, at little or no cost, hundreds of thousands of rusted out body panels, and rushed to solve the problem, ASAP (and they did--by the late 70's, it was pretty hard to find a Honda, or a Toyota with anything like serious road cancer for thousands of miles after purchase). In the bargain, a Toyota or a Honda (to a lesser extent Nissan and the others) came across as much higher quality cars, from the fit and finish, to the very sound of the engine when you started them up. They even looked better after hundreds of wash jobs--when paint peeled and flaked off Fords, Chevies and Plymouths, a bit of soap and water, a wax job, and that 3 yr old Japanese import sat there and shone. In response to "Protectionism" in this country, first Honda, then Toyota, then Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Subaru built factories in this country, to give American workers the opportunity to earn their living building those cars. Politicians won or lost elections based on their success in landing a "transplant" auto plant to their state. And in the bargain, those transplant factories brought a level of worker satisfaction, along with wage rates which in their local markets, were the highest achieved by any employee living in the particular city or town in question, without the high taxes and other barriers faced in places such as Michigan, the old industrial centers in Ohio and such.

The UAW did come to insist on both wage rates and benefit packages that ultimately proved to be unsustainable in the long run. And the "Big Three" went along, eager for labor peace, until that unsustainability became reality. It's nice to be able to have a pension plan that gives not just a cost of living adjustment annually, but goes up whenever there is a new contract providing a wage increase back at the plant where the retiree used to work. But when it comes to a point where a company has as many, if not more, retirees for which they shouldered considerable responsibilty, as they have active employees, then is that sustainable for very long? Apparently not. Health care coverage? Should this be something that is only voluntarily funded, funded by those who purchase a particular product from a particular company? Apparently so, given our general national revulsion for anything approaching "socialized medicine". But again, I digress.

Perhaps the biggest problem faced right now, is the legacy of management of companies, as though they lurch from quarter to quarter. The current downturn notwithstanding, for decades now, the stock market holds its breath every January, April, July and October, waiting for quarterly results to come in. And, corporate management lives by the quarter as well--do well this quarter, and you keep your job, has been their watchword. Enough good quarters, and you get a promotion. On the other side, a bad quarter, you might be out of work, and enough lackluster but "OK" quarters, and you will be passed over forever for promotion, as one who is "well placed in your current position".

Obscenely huge salaries and bennies for Corporate CEO's? Hardly these are the root of the financial problems faced by any of the companies in trouble right now--not when we're talking millions against billions of dollars--after all, a million is but 1/10 of one percent of a billion, or one-one thousandth--kind of like a flea on an elephant--not the really significant problem it seems to me. However, the message those superstar compensation packages mask much greater problems, it seems to me. This method of payment for services has lead to a whole cadre of "professional" managers, whose briefcases hold almost as many copies of their personal resume's as they do company business to be dealt with. The average tenure of a corporate CEO with the firm he is running is measured in short years anymore, not in long and meritorious service with that company, sheer decades of hard work. Is it little wonder that educational disciplines such as engineering, the sciences get short shrift from American college students, while the lure of an MBA has business administration schools bulging at the seams? And, no matter that a particular CEO failed in his or her attempt to maintain, let alone restore or increase the profitability, even the viability of the company they were hired to head--when they get fired, they go away all too often with pay envelopes so fat, it makes one wonder if that wasn't their first motivation, NOT the success of their last company.

Washington DC, you say? When's the last time there was a truly wholesale cleaning out of the chambers of the Capitol Building in Washington? I suggest that one has to look all the way back into the 1930's to see any significant change in the membership of the House and Senate--even this watershed year, only a fraction of House races, even fewer Senate seats truly changed hands (of course, only 33 senate seats were up for consideration this year, Constitutional provision, you know). Talk about entrenchment! I would maintain that regardless of political persuasion (our's, or the politician in question at the moment) that far too many senators and congressmen have held their offices for so long as to have forgotten (if they ever did know) what it means to be an average American on the street (some of them have never held a private sector job in the last 30-40 years--how can they possibly truly know what it's like out here, back home?). Was membership in the halls of Congress truly meant to be a lifetime appointment, really?

All in all, it's us, collectively, who are the problem--not some nebulous figure out there. It seems to me that that little porcupine in that little john boat in Okeefenoke Swamp got it pretty right--the "enemy is us".

Art

[Harry P.]

Well, Art, as usual you covered a lot of ground there... more, in fact, than we're talking about here, but it's always interesting to hear your take on things.

As far as "getting back to basics", i.e., GM about to go under...

I still say it's neither the taxpayer's obligation nor duty to pump our cash into a failing GM, or a failing private entity of any kind, via federal government "bailouts". Our tax dollars ought to be going towards future technology that will benefit the greatest number of us in the long run. Wind and solar power are two so achingly obvious solutions to our energy problems that it's absolutely beyond me why the feds haven't made this priority one. I realize that wind and solar power don't necessarily relate directly to autos or GM's troubles, but my point is that the BILLIONS being talked about as a bailout of the auto industry would be far better spent, and would return far better returns to our country down the road, if that money went towards funding a national alt fuel/alt energy program. Instead of the government bailing out GM, how about the government taking that money and offering it to new businesses as incentives to develop wind and solar power instead? It's an investment that would pay dividends big time to every US citizen, rather than just the relative few who work for GM. And it would create thousands and thousands of new, American jobs for Americans... here in America, not China or Japan or elsewhere!

NIMBY? Yes, that can be a sticking point... but what about the millions of acres of federally owned land that's currently sitting there doing nobody any particular good? Surely a few solar collectors and wind farms can be squeezed into that vast area of empty space!

And as far as "free" energy not being profitable, as old hermit mentioned, that's simply not true. Sure, the actual energy source itself (solar, wind) is free and unlimited. But there would need to be solar and wind companies that build the facilities, maintain them, and ultimately distribute the power to the consumer, at a profit, of course. It's a "win win" situation all around. We tap a source of free energy right here in our own country that no foreign entity can control, price or halt production of, we create thousands of new American jobs in the process, and we take a huge step towards energy independence. Let's see...bail out GM... or create new jobs, and develop a literally endless supply of energy? Isn't this painfully obvious? Am I missing something here?

Why isn't this being done right now on a massive scale? Beats me...

[Modelmartin]

A little story I remembered is very typical of Detroit's blundering. When the Vega and Pinto came out, GM and Ford were hoping to sell them overseas. They forgot to do basic research about other nations auto regs and taxation. Pinto was too wide and would be taxed at a higher rate and Vega engine was 2.3 litres and also taxed higher making both cars uncompetitive price wise. The story may not be true but it sure sounds typical.

Harry, the wind thing is good but it should be one of many approaches to energy. The craziness with the "corn " is more of a solution to a political problem rather than an energy problem. Wind doesn't blow all of the time and you need to store it somewhere when it isn't. It isn't THE solution but PART of the solution.

I believe conservation should be the highest priority out of many priorities. What would be the sense of developing all of these new sources of energy if we are going to waste those too!

Also, I am a liberal but I believe in capitalism and I do not believe in our government bailing out badly run companies. All of these financial and auto company bailouts make me crazy. They should have let Chrysler go in the 80s! It would have saved us from being subjected to a lot of ugly, crappy cars. What is really disappointing is that it looks like the bailout money in many cases is just more loot for a lot of high end thieves. The government should be demanding and getting a pound of flesh.

And so it goes.....

Andy

[Nick F40]

I didn't say I won't buy an American car. I keep forgetting there is an 'American' car I am going too look at, its a Saturn Astra. but how American can you call a car built in Belgium.

I currently own an domestic truck, and its good. not great though. I rode in a Cobalt. and it was originally on my list but I really didn't like it. built quality was light years ahead of the Cavalier it replaced but for the money there is better out there. I like upcoming Cruze but I can't wait till almost 2011 for it.

yeah, even though in ties with GM, I like how the Saturn Astra has the EXACT same name as the Opel Astra, basically a new Kadett, hmm no individuality anymore! Come on Saturn, nice one. Although Sport Compact Car said it is a nice car and is great handling and with power, that's right, cars can be fast withut a V8 and RWD, some people still don't seem to get it, and looks actually good which surprises them, because they are with me on the jellybean mold used now even though it is an Opel with Saturn badges, Opel quality and performance and name though. It's like the Subaru Impreza and the Saab 9-2X, a rebadged Impreza, same engine and everything, even interior, literally.

The DTM version is still top.

Well the profit goes to Detroit (using the same logic as all those who say, that the profits of an American build Japanese car go to Japan ;^)

I work for GM in Antwerp, Belgium and we build dam good cars (Opel/Vauxhall/Holden/Chevy/Saturn, Astra) hopefully we won't be shut down due to the current crisis.

Luc

yeah that's becuase you guys know how to build cars, us American GM don't. The Europeans just build better cars, that's all that's too it and the Japanese are coming up as well.

[Harry P.]

Harry, the wind thing is good but it should be one of many approaches to energy. The craziness with the "corn " is more of a solution to a political problem rather than an energy problem. Wind doesn't blow all of the time and you need to store it somewhere when it isn't. It isn't THE solution but PART of the solution.

Andy

Wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine 24/7. But when the wind DOES blow and the sun DOES shine, it's free!!! Shouldn't we be taking advantage of that fact to the fullest? Think of how many billions of potential kilowatts we're ignoring every day!

It's true that wind and solar alone aren't the whole answer, but they are there for the taking right now and can be a huge contributor to our energy needs. Again, this is so painfully obvious! There is literally no downside to developing this technology on a national scale, only benefits. And yet our government, in its infinite wisdom, ignores this readily available energy source and instead throws our money at OPEC, which is basically a group of countries that hate our guts but love our money, and at bloated, stagnant, poorly run corporations in an attempt to "fix" the economy. Sure makes me wonder about the collective IQ of our elected leaders...

[Modelmartin]

Wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine 24/7. But when the wind DOES blow and the sun DOES shine, it's free!!! Shouldn't we be taking advantage of that fact to the fullest? Think of how many billions of potential kilowatts we're ignoring every day!

It's true that wind and solar alone aren't the whole answer, but they are there for the taking right now and can be a huge contributor to our energy needs. Again, this is so painfully obvious! There is literally no downside to developing this technology on a national scale, only benefits. And yet our government, in its infinite wisdom, ignores this readily available energy source and instead throws our money at OPEC, which is basically a group of countries that hate our guts but love our money, and at bloated, stagnant, poorly run corporations in an attempt to "fix" the economy. Sure makes me wonder about the collective IQ of our elected leaders...

I did not mean that we shouldn't work hard on wind and solar and any other kind of energy. We should! I just don't think that any ONE approach is THE answer to the energy production problems. All eggs should not be in one basket. We should take every approach that is technically feasible and practical.

OPEC does not hate us. In fact they love, love, love our oil companies and the feeling is " moo-twul"( Madeline Kahn in Blazing Saddles). OPEC is in the business of fixing prices and the oil companies have the various countries and officials in their pockets to do the price-fixing for them. The poor residents of many of the OPEC states may indeed hate us. We finance and prop up the dictaters who "own" their countries and make their lives msierable. I wouldn't like it, either!

I would love it if the need for oil went down so far that the oil companies went to the government for a bail-out. I would love it if all we had to do was put our grass clippings from our lawn in the processing chamber in our Chevy Volts. No oil and transportation!!!

Andy

[BigGary]

Harry, your on a roll tonight! You mentioned solar and wind, which are fine for generation of electricity. The problem is that the environmentalists are all in favor of wind and solar, right up until the need is to put power cables through prime environments like forests and wildlife preserves, then their not in favor of it any more. That is wacko thinking.

The fact remains that our transportation structure is based on fossil fuels and has been for a long time. The most sensable alternative to crude oil-based fuel is natural gas. The most abundant fossil fuel we have. We're sitting on huge quantities of it but enviro extremists don't want us to disturb the land or water to get to it. It seems their goals are conflicted.

It will take considerable time to get the infrastructure in place to run cars and trucks on natural gas. It is a great alternative, but the availability is simply not there. there are other issues too.

It would seem they want us to go back to horse and buggy, or have the human race disappear completely. Ever been to a parade that includes lots of horses? Remember all the horse ###### on the road? Imagine what it would be like if hundreds of horse walked down the street every day? Go back to the late 19th century and that's what you'll see.

It seems to me that environmental extremists want what they can't have because they let their ideas override rational thought and a connection to reality. Same is true with US auto makers. They want us to buy what they and the feds want them to make instead of what the public wants to buy, if it is profitable. In the current climate, drastic cuts will be demanded to remain in business. One or two cars lines, 2 or 3 models in each car line, no low production cars, a lot of market research, and get the feds and green extremists out of the way.

Gary

[Harry P.]

The most sensable alternative to crude oil-based fuel is natural gas. The most abundant fossil fuel we have. We're sitting on huge quantities of it but enviro extremists don't want us to disturb the land or water to get to it. It seems their goals are conflicted.

It will take considerable time to get the infrastructure in place to run cars and trucks on natural gas. It is a great alternative, but the availability is simply not there. there are other issues too.

Gary

I agree you can't have it both ways. Going after natural gas reserves means going after them. You can't explore and recover the stuff without touching anything. There has to be a sane balance between developing our gas reserves and protecting the environment. It could be done if sensible people were running our country.

As far as the fact that it will take time to get the infrastructure in place... well of course it will! And the sooner we start, the sooner it will be in place! If we had started 10 years ago, we'd have it in place right now! The best time to get started is today! Saying that we can't use natural gas because the infrastructure isn't in place yet is just running in circles. Let's get the infrastructure in place. Let's start tomorrow! What are we waiting for???

If this country had a sensible energy policy, our cars would be on natural gas right now, and future technologies like hydrogen fuel cells would be well under development... we would actually be in a position to tell OPEC where they can stuff their oil. If we had a sensible energy policy in this country, and if we had sensible, forward-thinking leaders who actually put the needs of the public first.