|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2008 03:18:32 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ambaker:
Originally posted by Gordon:
There are plenty of things I'd buy from a company in Ch11 bankruptcy. I'd buy TVs from them. I'd not buy a car. |
Actually I'd do just the opposite. I'd buy a car, before I'd buy a TV from a company going through chapter 11. First and foremost because most of the parts are made by third party vendors. I can still get parts for cars made over 50 years ago, by companies that no longer exist. |
And when you wanted warranty service? A warranty that's part of the price you pay? Also, keep in mind that many of those 2nd and 3rd tier suppliers that are making those parts you're counting on will disappear as well |
The original factory warranty would be an issue. The extended warranties that people buy are, in reality, an insurance policy through a third party. (Even though they are sold by the dealerships.)
As for parts, as mentioned above, you can still get parts for cars built by companies that no longer exist. Some of the OEM suppliers may fail. But others will tool up for replacement parts.
As an example... 1962 Studebaker Hawk front timing chain cover gasket, can be purchased from AutoZone for the princely sum of $12.99 (US) The company has been out of business as an auto manufacturer for over 40 years. Similarly you can still buy parts for Kaiser vehicles, and they have not been manufactured for over 50 years. To think that if GM went belly up tomorrow, that next year there would be no service or parts for Chevrolet vehicles, is a bit short sighted.
Resale value however, would be a different story. I'd want a whopping good deal on a chapter 11 car.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2008 05:04:48 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by wdamman:
[b]Myth No. 1:...(snipped for brevity) |
Well, hell, if that is unbiased, I'm surprised they aren't making money hand over fist! Whoops. Reality has something to say about that... |
Not sure I follow? Is the sales data listed under Myth 1 wrong? |
|
|
|
12/08/2008 06:28:23 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ambaker:
Originally posted by Gordon:
There are plenty of things I'd buy from a company in Ch11 bankruptcy. I'd buy TVs from them. I'd not buy a car. |
Actually I'd do just the opposite. I'd buy a car, before I'd buy a TV from a company going through chapter 11. First and foremost because most of the parts are made by third party vendors. I can still get parts for cars made over 50 years ago, by companies that no longer exist. |
And when you wanted warranty service? A warranty that's part of the price you pay? Also, keep in mind that many of those 2nd and 3rd tier suppliers that are making those parts you're counting on will disappear as well |
Well if the quality is as good as people say there is no need to worry about lack of warranty service :)
Seriously, the two Toyotas we recently bought passed the warranty period without ever needing anything done.
And honestly, if it were a smoking deal on the car, a non manufacturer waranty (available on used cars - not sure about new?) isn't that expensive. Fear of not having a warranty would only be a minor negative if i were in the market for a new car and the price were right. |
Your example of your two vehicles passing warranty limits is statistically irrelevant.
There are going to be warranty service issues on some of EVERY car model made, regardless of manufacturer. I don't care how good their quality management system is. Those 10yr/100K powertrain warranties? There are some number of people who get, what would otherwise be very expensive, service under those warranties, but you'd just reduce it to a crapshoot. If you get a "smoking deal" on a new car and it needs a new engine, how "smoking" was that deal? If you know anything at all about failure analysis you know about the bathtub curve and what's referred to as "infant mortality". Your myopic idea will screw a lot of people over.
I doubt you'd be able to purchase an affordable warranty on a new car. The risks without the manufacturer being in business are too unknown. The companies that offer extended used car warranties are betting on the same bathtub curve with used cars and are unlikely to assume the liability for those same "infant mortality" failures for a product they have no real data on.
Yet another issue is the safety issues that crop up on vehicles. Who will collect, compile and analyze repair data to find potential safety defects? Like less significant quality issues, all manufacturers have them. No third party will have the product knowledge and dealer service data to analyze, detect and address the problem. Would you be happy if the brakes on your "smoking deal" had a defect that placed the occupants at risk and no one is looking at the data that would indicate such a defect until long after they manufacturer would have caught it? Assuming that the defect is found, who will engineer the fix? Who will pay for the repairs? Who will fund the recall, if necessary? Who will compensate those whose vehicle was damaged or, worse, had loved ones die due to the defect? Sure, you could sue, but even if you win a huge judgment, you just get a place to stand in line behind the rest of the creditors who have better lawyers working to get their pound of flesh.
Your "Smoking Deal" is one you'd be advised to steer clear of.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:36:50 AM · #129 |
I'm presenting this in an unbiased manner as general information. I think it's interesting and educational:
$73/hour: Adding it up. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:01:51 AM · #130 |
Also an interesting read on Alan Mulally, Ford's CEO. Gives some insight into why Ford is in better shape that GM or Chrysler and how he's made moves to shrink Ford as suggested by the Yahoo article Jason posted.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm presenting this in an unbiased manner as general information. I think it's interesting and educational:
$73/hour: Adding it up. |
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:23:19 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your "Smoking Deal" is one you'd be advised to steer clear of. |
I wouldn't buy GM anyway! :)
But yeah, the price would have to be right to overlook lack of warranty. And I would not even consider getting a new car without some sort of warranty in place. Thus the reduced price on the car would have to more then cover the cost of a purchased warranty. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:25:51 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your "Smoking Deal" is one you'd be advised to steer clear of. |
I wouldn't buy GM anyway! :)
But yeah, the price would have to be right to overlook lack of warranty. And I would not even consider getting a new car without some sort of warranty in place. Thus the reduced price on the car would have to more then cover the cost of a purchased warranty. |
A warranty which no one will issue anyway, so where does that leave your idea?
Oh yeah, dead, that's where. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:31:12 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm presenting this in an unbiased manner as general information. I think it's interesting and educational:
$73/hour: Adding it up. |
From the article:
"The real problem is that many people don't want to buy the cars that Detroit makes. Fixing this problem won't be nearly so easy."
and
"It's a sad story, in many ways. But it can't really be undone at this point. If we had wanted to preserve the Big Three, we would have bought more of their cars."
GM has sold more cars then anyone else in the world for how many years in a row now? How many more cars do we have to buy to make them profitable? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:36:23 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your "Smoking Deal" is one you'd be advised to steer clear of. |
I wouldn't buy GM anyway! :)
But yeah, the price would have to be right to overlook lack of warranty. And I would not even consider getting a new car without some sort of warranty in place. Thus the reduced price on the car would have to more then cover the cost of a purchased warranty. |
A warranty which no one will issue anyway, so where does that leave your idea?
Oh yeah, dead, that's where. |
Well, like I said, I wouldn't buy it without a warranty. I'd be willing to bet some company will sell warranties on GMs when GM goes out of business though. Do you really want to argue that? There are insurance companies out there that will warranty anything for a price. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:44:56 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your "Smoking Deal" is one you'd be advised to steer clear of. |
I wouldn't buy GM anyway! :)
But yeah, the price would have to be right to overlook lack of warranty. And I would not even consider getting a new car without some sort of warranty in place. Thus the reduced price on the car would have to more then cover the cost of a purchased warranty. |
A warranty which no one will issue anyway, so where does that leave your idea?
Oh yeah, dead, that's where. |
Well, like I said, I wouldn't buy it without a warranty. I'd be willing to bet some company will sell warranties on GMs when GM goes out of business though. Do you really want to argue that? There are insurance companies out there that will warranty anything for a price. |
I'm sure you could find a company to do so, but as you said, it'd be for a price. A price that would negate any discount you might have received on the vehicle as part of your "smoking deal".
If you disagree, show me. Find a reputable insurer willing to assume that risk for less than what that warranty costs as part of your new vehicle purchase. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:48:28 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your "Smoking Deal" is one you'd be advised to steer clear of. |
I wouldn't buy GM anyway! :)
But yeah, the price would have to be right to overlook lack of warranty. And I would not even consider getting a new car without some sort of warranty in place. Thus the reduced price on the car would have to more then cover the cost of a purchased warranty. |
A warranty which no one will issue anyway, so where does that leave your idea?
Oh yeah, dead, that's where. |
Well, like I said, I wouldn't buy it without a warranty. I'd be willing to bet some company will sell warranties on GMs when GM goes out of business though. Do you really want to argue that? There are insurance companies out there that will warranty anything for a price. |
I'm sure you could find a company to do so, but as you said, it'd be for a price. A price that would negate any discount you might have received on the vehicle as part of your "smoking deal".
If you disagree, show me. Find a reputable insurer willing to assume that risk for less than what that warranty costs as part of your new vehicle purchase. |
I'm not going to argure a hypothetical. Lloyds of London would insure my balls for the right price, of course they'd cover a new car. Maybe the rate would be less then the discount on the car, maybe not. I really don't care. If you really want to prove it, go nuts.
My point, "IF THE PRICE WAS RIGHT" lack of a manufacturer warranty is not a big deal. OBVIOUSLY, if the price was not right, it would be.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:50:48 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your "Smoking Deal" is one you'd be advised to steer clear of. |
I wouldn't buy GM anyway! :)
But yeah, the price would have to be right to overlook lack of warranty. And I would not even consider getting a new car without some sort of warranty in place. Thus the reduced price on the car would have to more then cover the cost of a purchased warranty. |
A warranty which no one will issue anyway, so where does that leave your idea?
Oh yeah, dead, that's where. |
Well, like I said, I wouldn't buy it without a warranty. I'd be willing to bet some company will sell warranties on GMs when GM goes out of business though. Do you really want to argue that? There are insurance companies out there that will warranty anything for a price. |
I'm sure you could find a company to do so, but as you said, it'd be for a price. A price that would negate any discount you might have received on the vehicle as part of your "smoking deal".
If you disagree, show me. Find a reputable insurer willing to assume that risk for less than what that warranty costs as part of your new vehicle purchase. |
I'm not going to argure a hypothetical. Lloyds of London would insure my balls for the right price, of course they'd cover a new car. Maybe the rate would be less then the discount on the car, maybe not. I really don't care. If you really want to prove it, go nuts.
My point, "IF THE PRICE WAS RIGHT" lack of a manufacturer warranty is not a big deal. OBVIOUSLY, if the price was not right, it would be. |
It was your claim that such a policy was plausible. In light of your unwillingness to show otherwise, I still say it's B.S.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 16:51:42. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:16:22 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your "Smoking Deal" is one you'd be advised to steer clear of. |
I wouldn't buy GM anyway! :)
But yeah, the price would have to be right to overlook lack of warranty. And I would not even consider getting a new car without some sort of warranty in place. Thus the reduced price on the car would have to more then cover the cost of a purchased warranty. |
A warranty which no one will issue anyway, so where does that leave your idea?
Oh yeah, dead, that's where. |
Well, like I said, I wouldn't buy it without a warranty. I'd be willing to bet some company will sell warranties on GMs when GM goes out of business though. Do you really want to argue that? There are insurance companies out there that will warranty anything for a price. |
I'm sure you could find a company to do so, but as you said, it'd be for a price. A price that would negate any discount you might have received on the vehicle as part of your "smoking deal".
If you disagree, show me. Find a reputable insurer willing to assume that risk for less than what that warranty costs as part of your new vehicle purchase. |
I'm not going to argure a hypothetical. Lloyds of London would insure my balls for the right price, of course they'd cover a new car. Maybe the rate would be less then the discount on the car, maybe not. I really don't care. If you really want to prove it, go nuts.
My point, "IF THE PRICE WAS RIGHT" lack of a manufacturer warranty is not a big deal. OBVIOUSLY, if the price was not right, it would be. |
It was your claim that such a policy was plausible. In light of your unwillingness to show otherwise, I still say it's B.S. |
Okay, you are right. Your knowledge of non manufacturer warranties on new cars from companies that have gone out of business is clearly superior to mine. You win, good job. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:17:45 PM · #139 |
I forget who it was that jumped up and called me an idiot for saying that Japanese cars are generally more popular (and reliable), but I would like to share this report with the hotheads who ignore reality and just know how to throw darts.
There!!! |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:04:05 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Prash:
I forget who it was that jumped up and called me an idiot for saying that Japanese cars are generally more popular (and reliable), but I would like to share this report with the hotheads who ignore reality and just know how to throw darts.
There!!! |
Only saw the first couple lines, but note the article seems to talk about customer retention, not popularity of cars. Maybe the article discusses popularity further down? Or were you only referring to popularity of car brands among current owners of those brands? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:08:41 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Originally posted by Prash:
I forget who it was that jumped up and called me an idiot for saying that Japanese cars are generally more popular (and reliable), but I would like to share this report with the hotheads who ignore reality and just know how to throw darts.
There!!! |
Only saw the first couple lines, but note the article seems to talk about customer retention, not popularity of cars. Maybe the article discusses popularity further down? Or were you only referring to popularity of car brands among current owners of those brands? |
Yea it doesnt explicitly state the popularity indices.
But are you implying then, that the reason one goes back and buys the same brand again and again (retention) is not linked with the popularity and reliability of the brand?
ETA: And even if one considers only current owners of those brands, there must be some reasoning to why their owners stick to the same brand when buying again? Let me guess.. could it be equal or better quality, longetivity, and competitive pricing?
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 20:10:56. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:41:52 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm presenting this in an unbiased manner as general information. I think it's interesting and educational:
$73/hour: Adding it up. |
Seems like more of the same journalistic surface sniffing to me. Especially the conclusion.
I guess it is interesting that the author downplayed the per vehicle legacy costs as being "only $800". Only $800?? The US auto companies sold 18 MILLION vehicles last year. At $800 per vehicle, that's $14.4 Billion last year alone. Multiply that by any number of years you like and pretty soon, you're talking about real money.
ETA:
The US auto companies are widely credited with establishing and sustaining the middle class in the US. The article notes the burden of doing so. To me, it's more than a little sad that taking care of employees and retirees cannot even be considered anymore. Certainly, the competitors to the US companies do not share in that burden. Nor do they provide comparable benefits to their current employees. Yay! They're more profitable - let's celebrate them! But what is that doing for the average American citizen? Not much.
I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the US auto companies are blameless, and have only done good deeds. They were too slow to change in the face of competition, too slow to trim costs, trim production, trim product lines and trim the workforce. But with all that already well underway, and knowing the importance of that industry to the US economy, I am willing to support them.
Probably too late anyway. Congressional mud slinging and feet dragging has done tremendous damage to their reputations lately. Who will support them after all this? Will the get money in time anyway? Not at this pace. If they quickly fail it will be the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy from the wonderfully inefficient US Congress. How different it could have been if they boosted consumer confidence and still got all the changes they are seeking.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 21:31:22. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:50:58 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Prash:
But are you implying then, that the reason one goes back and buys the same brand again and again (retention) is not linked with the popularity and reliability of the brand?
|
I'm not sure why you would have to delve into implications of very plain statements. You said Japanese cars are generally more popular. In support of that, you pointed to an article that did not deal with popularity in general but with customer retention.
I never said or implied that Japanese cars weren't popular. The big three US auto companies sold 18 million cars last year. They are also popular. That's all.
Don't look for sinister implications. I don't control the meaning of the word popular. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:23:43 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Maybe if they had a plan for competing in the market rather than whining when they can't, a bailout would be more palatable. |
You may want to investigate the impact on Canada if the D3 go under. Auto manufacturing is the number 1 Canadian business and the effects of failure would be catostrophic. Some believe it would affect Canada worse than the US. But perhaps that is of no concern to you. I think that the Canadian government is already assessing what it might do to assist - in light of the potential impact. Certainly nearly every other international government is doing what it can to help its own car manufacturers and this is a world wide event and not the sole problem of Detroit.
I posted this in Rant but perhaps some here may find it insightful:
At Witz' End: What Auto CEOs Should Have Said
Did it occur to anyone else that those oh-so-painful auto CEO/government hearings should have been the other way around?
Instead of the heads of America's three remaining automakers groveling, begging and enduring live public floggings trying to sell their case for government loans to get them past the global economic crisis and credit freeze that government greed, corruption and incompetence has created, shouldn't they have been vein-popping outraged and angry? Shouldn't they have pointed accusatory fingers at that sorry collection of arrogant, auto-ignorant Senators and Congressmen who got them into this mess and demanded their assistance?
Shouldn't they have looked those pompous public-trough pinheads straight in the face and demanded to know why investment firms, banks and big insurance get hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout dollars no questions asked while what's left of America's once-mighty manufacturing muscle begs for loans totaling 1/28 of that initial $700 billion Wall Street bailout? Where were the public humiliation hearings and newly viable business plans for those guys?
Here is what I'll bet those long-suffering auto CEOs wanted to say, but couldn't:
"You ignorant morons! How dare you accuse us of building cars nobody wants? We sold 8.5 million vehicles in the US last year and millions more around the world. GM still handily outsells Toyota here, Ford outsells Honda and Nissan, and Chrysler sells more than Nissan and Hyundai combined. H ow many of our new cars have you driven lately? How many quality surveys and plant productivity reports have you reviewed? Have you bothered to check your own EPA's fuel economy ratings?
"Have you paid any attention in the last several years as we've turned our companies upside down, closed dozens of plants, shed hundreds of thousands of hard-working people who did nothing to deserve it, canceled slow-selling models and spent billions of hard-earned dollars redesigning the rest? Are you idiots even aware that we renegotiated our union contracts last year to make our US labor and health-care costs fully competitive by 2010?
"Would you recognize a good business plan if one smacked you upside the head? Have any of you ever run a business, made a business decision or even held a real job? Is there any more dysfunctional organization on the planet, any that more desperately needs a new business plan, than the US Congress? Let's compare our public approval ratings to yours .
"You scold us for using private aircraft? We run global companies flying people, parts and equipment all over the world every day. We use private planes for security and productivity and cost savings over commercial alternatives. If it were not cost effective, we would not do it, and we've been doing a lot less of it lately. Tell us, Ms. Pelosi, how much does that big private 757-200 of yours cost taxpayers to fly you home and back between your tough 3-day weeks?
"For decades, your national energy policy has been summed up by two words: 'cheap gas.' Now you want to punish us for building the big, capable, comfortable vehicles Americans wanted to take advantage of that policy...and for not building millions more smaller, more fuel-efficient cars that, until recently, almost no one wanted, and that we can't make a buck on if we build them here thanks to the high business costs you've imposed upon us through the years.
"You have blocked every avenue of domestic e xploration and construction that could lead to eventual energy independence, preferring instead to pump hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to purchase the energy Americans need, much of it from countries that are not our friends. You have piled billions of dollars of unrecoverable costs on us with excessive taxation, overkill regulation and relentless litigation that our off-shore competitors do not have to bear. Then you have rolled out the red carpet to predatory, low-cost foreign competitors who come here to take our market and pump hundreds of millions more dollars out of this country.
"Is there any other country fortunate enough to have an automotive industry that does not support, protect and nourish it in every possible way? We are the only nation on earth too blind and stupid to recognize and treasure the enormous economic and national security advantages of having its own healthy, prosperous auto industry and manufacturing base.
"Now you have passed an enormously expensive new regulation requiring 40 percent higher corporate average fuel economy in hopes of someday reducing the less than 0.2 percent of global human-sourced CO2 attributable to US light vehicles. That will cost us an estimated $100 billion, and even if you believe that is really worth doing at such a cost, where are we going to get that kind of money? Talk about unfunded mandates!
"With recent resizings and restructurings and our new labor contracts, we were well on our ways to full financial competitiveness and profitability. We could have survived and the sudden $4 gas explosion - not our fault - that shifted buyer demand overnight from larger, more profitable vehicles to small unprofitable ones. We have millions of highly desirable, much more fuel-efficient small cars and engines in the pipeline for 2010 and beyond.
"Then came your mortgage meltdown and fast-frozen credit crisis, which no one in this credit-driven business can survive un aided for long: not us, not our suppliers, not our many thousands of independent dealers, not even our most cash-rich foreign competitors. They, too, are asking their governments for assistance. Will they get it? Of course! No other nation will stand idly by and watch its auto industry die.
"There was no end of election rhetoric about creating new jobs. How about saving several million of the ones we have? Can any of you begin to understand how this industry is a huge, fragile, interdependent house of cards? If GM should fail, or declare Chapter 11, so will most of its 3,690 suppliers, beginning with the 2,000 in the US that operate 4,550 facilities in 46 states. Since most also supply key components to everyone else, that will bring down all of us, including US transplant production. Don't believe us? Ask Toyota.
"Vehicle assembly, engine, transmission and parts plants nationwide will shut down. Have you seen a plant town whose plant has died? It's a jobless ghos t to wn whose out-of-work residents, including owners and employees of the small businesses that depended on plant workers' incomes, can't afford to move because their homes ΓΆ€“ like their hopes and dreams ΓΆ€“ are worthless. How many of those communities will be in your states and districts? US dealers of all brands, with no new cars, credit or credit-worthy customers, will drop like flies. Without once lucrative auto advertising, many media will shrink and some will die? The predicted initial loss of 3 million jobs will be just the beginning. Can you spell depression?
"Yes, we have lost a lot of market share. Where did you think all those millions of cars and trucks our foreign competitors import and assemble here in taxpayer-subsidized plants in cheap-labor states would be sold, and out of whose hides did you think they would come?
"Yes, we have made mistakes, some bad products and bad business decisions in the past. And so has every one of our competitors. We are entir ely d ifferent companies today with new leadership and new priorities. We have wide varieties of high quality, high fuel efficiency, highly desirable new products that Americans, as they get to know them, absolutely do want to buy. Why continue to punish us, and the millions of incredibly dedicated, hard-working people at all levels who still depend on us to feed their families, for the sins of our predecessors?
"Why punish the entire country and millions in other countries as well? If you can think of any good reason, we would like to hear it. And don't come back at us with your usual name-calling, finger-pointing, blame-shifting, uninformed opinions, decades-old perceptions and self-serving, grandstanding rhetoric. We have offered our business plans and all the facts behind how we got here and why we need and deserve to survive and prosper for the good of this country and every citizen in it.
"You know full well that this life-threatening position you have put us in to is entirely your fault, not ours, and that our future viability depends completely on you. We're anxiously awaiting your business plan for guiding this country out of the economic morass you have created, beginning with the bridge loans we desperately need."
Award-winning automotive writer Gary Witzenburg has been writing about automobiles, auto people and the auto industry for 21 years. A former auto engineer, race driver and advanced technology vehicle development manager, his work has appeared in a wide variety of national magazines including The Robb Report, Playboy, Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Autoweek and Automobile Quarterly and has authored eight automotive books. He is currently contributing regularly to Kelley Blue Book (www.kbb.com), AutoMedia.com< /A>, W ard's Auto World and Motor Trend's Truck Trend and is a North American Car and Truck of the Year juror
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:40:18 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Originally posted by Prash:
But are you implying then, that the reason one goes back and buys the same brand again and again (retention) is not linked with the popularity and reliability of the brand?
|
I'm not sure why you would have to delve into implications of very plain statements. You said Japanese cars are generally more popular. In support of that, you pointed to an article that did not deal with popularity in general but with customer retention.
I never said or implied that Japanese cars weren't popular. The big three US auto companies sold 18 million cars last year. They are also popular. That's all.
Don't look for sinister implications. I don't control the meaning of the word popular. |
You may say or believe whatever you wish. The truth holds: one (sure, not the only) of the reasons the auto industry is struggling is because the products are NOT competitive enough with the Asian and some European auto products on a quality/price value.
There might be other causes, including high costs of manufacturing here in the U.S., coming from good employee care packages etc. etc. But that doesnt warrant that the government should pay taxpayer's dollars to cover up for the lack of foresight of certain executives about how to deal with that fact.
If we can produce equal or better quality cars here on the U.S soil for cheaper as compared to the international market, the auto industry will thrive. If not, no matter what the amount and frequency of lame bailouts, it will not survive.
Its a free market. If people have a choice between a home fabricated expensive sport SUV and a cheaper yet quality international product, they will go for it. As simple as that. Nothing more to it.
Now you can paint it in legal slang all you want, but that is all there is to it. And if you fail to see that straight truth in there, you may benefit from reading the real street economics and not just the global economy jargon.
Peace!
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 16:41:47. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:51:32 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Originally posted by Prash:
But are you implying then, that the reason one goes back and buys the same brand again and again (retention) is not linked with the popularity and reliability of the brand?
|
I'm not sure why you would have to delve into implications of very plain statements. You said Japanese cars are generally more popular. In support of that, you pointed to an article that did not deal with popularity in general but with customer retention.
I never said or implied that Japanese cars weren't popular. The big three US auto companies sold 18 million cars last year. They are also popular. That's all.
Don't look for sinister implications. I don't control the meaning of the word popular. |
You may say or believe whatever you wish. The truth holds: one (sure, not the only) of the reasons the auto industry is struggling is because the products are NOT competitive enough with the Asian and some European auto products on a quality/price value.
There might be other causes, including high costs of manufacturing here in the U.S., coming from good employee care packages etc. etc. But that doesnt warrant that the government should pay taxpayer's dollars to cover up for the lack of foresight of certain executives about how to deal with that fact.
If we can produce equal or better quality cars here on the U.S soil for cheaper as compared to the international market, the auto industry will thrive. If not, no matter what the amount and frequency of lame bailouts, it will not survive.
Its a free market. If people have a choice between a home fabricated expensive sport SUV and a cheaper yet quality international product, they will go for it. As simple as that. Nothing more to it.
Now you can paint it in legal slang all you want, but that is all there is to it. And if you fail to see that straight truth in there, you may benefit from reading the real street economics and not just the global economy jargon.
Peace! |
The consumer is free to choose what product they buy, but the automotive market is anything but free. Foreign automakers are subsidized by government, both at home and here in the U.S. and to a much greater degree than what the D3 are asking for.
The foriegn automakers are helped to compete by their government AND U.S. governments while the D3 aren't helped at home or abroad. In fact, is some countries, they are penalized by governments that have unbalanced trade policies in place to protect their automakers.
Say what you want, but to call the market "free" is simply untrue. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:01:09 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Originally posted by Prash:
But are you implying then, that the reason one goes back and buys the same brand again and again (retention) is not linked with the popularity and reliability of the brand?
|
I'm not sure why you would have to delve into implications of very plain statements. You said Japanese cars are generally more popular. In support of that, you pointed to an article that did not deal with popularity in general but with customer retention.
I never said or implied that Japanese cars weren't popular. The big three US auto companies sold 18 million cars last year. They are also popular. That's all.
Don't look for sinister implications. I don't control the meaning of the word popular. |
You may say or believe whatever you wish. The truth holds: one (sure, not the only) of the reasons the auto industry is struggling is because the products are NOT competitive enough with the Asian and some European auto products on a quality/price value.
There might be other causes, including high costs of manufacturing here in the U.S., coming from good employee care packages etc. etc. But that doesnt warrant that the government should pay taxpayer's dollars to cover up for the lack of foresight of certain executives about how to deal with that fact.
If we can produce equal or better quality cars here on the U.S soil for cheaper as compared to the international market, the auto industry will thrive. If not, no matter what the amount and frequency of lame bailouts, it will not survive.
Its a free market. If people have a choice between a home fabricated expensive sport SUV and a cheaper yet quality international product, they will go for it. As simple as that. Nothing more to it.
Now you can paint it in legal slang all you want, but that is all there is to it. And if you fail to see that straight truth in there, you may benefit from reading the real street economics and not just the global economy jargon.
Peace! |
The consumer is free to choose what product they buy, but the automotive market is anything but free. Foreign automakers are subsidized by government, both at home and here in the U.S. and to a much greater degree than what the D3 are asking for.
The foriegn automakers are helped to compete by their government AND U.S. governments while the D3 aren't helped at home or abroad. In fact, is some countries, they are penalized by governments that have unbalanced trade policies in place to protect their automakers.
Say what you want, but to call the market "free" is simply untrue. |
When I say free market, I am referring to only the U.S. economy. It would be absurd to call the global bazaar a free market in presence of a diverse mix of differently regulated economies. I thought you understood that.
Now,
A well structured long-term plan in the form of subsidies or tax breaks is ok, it is free giveaway billions that I am against of. If I read it correctly, even in the senate, people are concerned because they dont see how a short term assistance will make the D3 more competitive.
I am sure the governments that subsidize their home industries also have tighter regulations making sure that senior execs dont misuse the freedom given.
OTOH, when you talk about more government assistance, arent you going away from the notion of capitalism? Isnt that defying the whole spirit of what U.S. is all about? I thought our way was the best way to do business.. apparently not. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:28:04 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Originally posted by Prash:
But are you implying then, that the reason one goes back and buys the same brand again and again (retention) is not linked with the popularity and reliability of the brand?
|
I'm not sure why you would have to delve into implications of very plain statements. You said Japanese cars are generally more popular. In support of that, you pointed to an article that did not deal with popularity in general but with customer retention.
I never said or implied that Japanese cars weren't popular. The big three US auto companies sold 18 million cars last year. They are also popular. That's all.
Don't look for sinister implications. I don't control the meaning of the word popular. |
You may say or believe whatever you wish. The truth holds: one (sure, not the only) of the reasons the auto industry is struggling is because the products are NOT competitive enough with the Asian and some European auto products on a quality/price value.
There might be other causes, including high costs of manufacturing here in the U.S., coming from good employee care packages etc. etc. But that doesnt warrant that the government should pay taxpayer's dollars to cover up for the lack of foresight of certain executives about how to deal with that fact.
If we can produce equal or better quality cars here on the U.S soil for cheaper as compared to the international market, the auto industry will thrive. If not, no matter what the amount and frequency of lame bailouts, it will not survive.
Its a free market. If people have a choice between a home fabricated expensive sport SUV and a cheaper yet quality international product, they will go for it. As simple as that. Nothing more to it.
Now you can paint it in legal slang all you want, but that is all there is to it. And if you fail to see that straight truth in there, you may benefit from reading the real street economics and not just the global economy jargon.
Peace! |
The consumer is free to choose what product they buy, but the automotive market is anything but free. Foreign automakers are subsidized by government, both at home and here in the U.S. and to a much greater degree than what the D3 are asking for.
The foriegn automakers are helped to compete by their government AND U.S. governments while the D3 aren't helped at home or abroad. In fact, is some countries, they are penalized by governments that have unbalanced trade policies in place to protect their automakers.
Say what you want, but to call the market "free" is simply untrue. |
When I say free market, I am referring to only the U.S. economy. It would be absurd to call the global bazaar a free market in presence of a diverse mix of differently regulated economies. I thought you understood that.
Now,
A well structured long-term plan in the form of subsidies or tax breaks is ok, it is free giveaway billions that I am against of. If I read it correctly, even in the senate, people are concerned because they dont see how a short term assistance will make the D3 more competitive.
I am sure the governments that subsidize their home industries also have tighter regulations making sure that senior execs dont misuse the freedom given.
OTOH, when you talk about more government assistance, arent you going away from the notion of capitalism? Isnt that defying the whole spirit of what U.S. is all about? I thought our way was the best way to do business.. apparently not. |
First, I don't think that, given the global nature of the automotive industry, you can consider the US market independently, nor could you expect that if Toyota receives billions from the Japanese government that it would not be used for operations in the U.S. market, should the need arise. No one is talking about giving away billions of dollars. They are discussing loans, so, any money given away would be the difference in the interest the government charges the D3 vs. what they would earn lending it to, say, a bank.
You're "sure the governments that subsidize their home industries also have tighter regulations..."? Is that the best you have? In any case, no one is disputing oversight on how the funds are used and increased regulation. The simple fact is that government subsidies give foreign automakers a huge edge in competing with the D3.
Why are you OK with the government handing out billions in tax breaks, subsidies etc. for foreign automakers, but opposed to a loan for the D3? I don't get it.
In case you hadn't noticed, the US is not a pure capitalist entity and that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:44:33 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Patents4u:
[quote=Prash]
But are you implying then, that the reason one goes back and buys the same brand again and again (retention) is not linked with the popularity and reliability of the brand?
|
I'm not sure why you would have to delve into implications of very plain statements. You said Japanese cars are generally more popular. In support of that, you pointed to an article that did not deal with popularity in general but with customer retention.
I never said or implied that Japanese cars weren't popular. The big three US auto companies sold 18 million cars last year. They are also popular. That's all.
Don't look for sinister implications. I don't control the meaning of the word popular. |
You may say or believe whatever you wish. The truth holds: one (sure, not the only) of the reasons the auto industry is struggling is because the products are NOT competitive enough with the Asian and some European auto products on a quality/price value.
There might be other causes, including high costs of manufacturing here in the U.S., coming from good employee care packages etc. etc. But that doesnt warrant that the government should pay taxpayer's dollars to cover up for the lack of foresight of certain executives about how to deal with that fact.
If we can produce equal or better quality cars here on the U.S soil for cheaper as compared to the international market, the auto industry will thrive. If not, no matter what the amount and frequency of lame bailouts, it will not survive.
Its a free market. If people have a choice between a home fabricated expensive sport SUV and a cheaper yet quality international product, they will go for it. As simple as that. Nothing more to it.
Now you can paint it in legal slang all you want, but that is all there is to it. And if you fail to see that straight truth in there, you may benefit from reading the real street economics and not just the global economy jargon.
Peace! |
The consumer is free to choose what product they buy, but the automotive market is anything but free. Foreign automakers are subsidized by government, both at home and here in the U.S. and to a much greater degree than what the D3 are asking for.
The foriegn automakers are helped to compete by their government AND U.S. governments while the D3 aren't helped at home or abroad. In fact, is some countries, they are penalized by governments that have unbalanced trade policies in place to protect their automakers.
Say what you want, but to call the market "free" is simply untrue. |
When I say free market, I am referring to only the U.S. economy. It would be absurd to call the global bazaar a free market in presence of a diverse mix of differently regulated economies. I thought you understood that.
Now,
A well structured long-term plan in the form of subsidies or tax breaks is ok, it is free giveaway billions that I am against of. If I read it correctly, even in the senate, people are concerned because they dont see how a short term assistance will make the D3 more competitive.
I am sure the governments that subsidize their home industries also have tighter regulations making sure that senior execs dont misuse the freedom given.
OTOH, when you talk about more government assistance, arent you going away from the notion of capitalism? Isnt that defying the whole spirit of what U.S. is all about? I thought our way was the best way to do business.. apparently not. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why are you OK with the government handing out billions in tax breaks, subsidies etc. for foreign automakers, but opposed to a loan for the D3? I don't get it. |
I am NOT Ok with that. I cant imagine U.S. govt. handing out tax breaks preferentially to foreign auto makers. Where did you hear that? If there are such breaks, the D3 for sure must have gotton them too.
Now assuming the foreign automakers get the same tax and subsidy treatment as the U.S. ones from the U.S. government, I am OK with a structured plan that has milestones to measure stepped progress of D3. Again, I am NOT ok with freebies to D3 without any thing that makes them accountable in return.. just because they are home companies.
If the asian auto makers get subsidies from their government, it shows in their standing and reputation.
If the D3 receive the same treatment from our govt., I would expect them to work their asses off and prove it in the world market rather than sitting in their Hummers and desiring a new HDTV every Christmas (I am referring to the management here.. not the working class). The asians are hard working people.. very hard working. And perhaps.. just perhaps.. they know how to make use of the opportunities they get.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 17:44:58. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:47:48 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Now you can paint it in legal slang all you want, but that is all there is to it. And if you fail to see that straight truth in there, you may benefit from reading the real street economics and not just the global economy jargon.
Peace! |
The straight truth in where? You keep suggesting that the US cars aren't popular or competitive (yawn). You and the media state it with such conviction, too. As if repeating it often will give it weight. But you cannot seem to respond to the simple fact that the US auto companies sell more vehicles than anyone else! 18 Million last year alone. Not popular? Not competitive? Is that "legal slang" or the most basic and simple facts?
And you throw around the truck and SUV lingo, just like the media, too! Tell me, did Toyota (the gold standard in business) sell more cars or trucks/SUV's in the US every year recently, and up until the recent gas price spike? The answer is trucks and SUV's. Did you see them advertise anything else until recently? Now, I guess you have to argue that everyone was out of touch about the US market and not just the US auto companies, or do you have some other "straight truth in there"?
Opinions are free. But to speak so arrogantly about something you seem to know so little about is disturbing. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 11:28:51 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 11:28:51 AM EDT.
|
