I thought the USA was hell-bent on living and dying by the principle of a free-market economy? I mean, you even rely on capitalism to provide your health care system - that's pretty hardcore.
Bunging $25Bn of public cash at the automobile industry would be a distinctly un-American thing to do, and would surely cause diplomatic issues with other countries who are competing in that market.
Oh my! so much to reply to, where to start?... I pick Sam!
Getting bought out by the government might be a good idea, except for I have a few reservations. First, our government has no money either because of that stupid war thing. And two, is our government competent enough to help the industries? I can only hope that the new government (Obama, etc.) will have a better economic plan than we currently do...
And last I checked, it was a Chrysler PT Cruiser, unless GM suddenlyt aqcuired Chysler and nobody told me. And for the record, that car is laughable here, too.
No! I would not be able to stand Japanese style for the rest of my life.
Exactly. Why sell two cars when the European one looks better and recieves better marks? The ones they sell here are absolute crap and often the overseas versions are rumored to be better and more profitable. Don't know if the European cars are actually better, but there has been some push here to scrap some of the current american models (*cough*FordFocus) in favor of the European ones. And the new Pontaic G8 here is a Holden ... It took about five years of people whining to get the aussie car. And it gets better reviews than the newest american GTO. (It's still a big gas guzzler though, but that's not the point)
I'm sure that will solve every problem immediately. Though i do love me some Top Gear...
First, I think I just found part of the problem in America. No one here would know what impetus means, much less use it in a sentence. How can they be expected to help the country if they isn't literates? I still mistrust Ford for that incident. It is the only one of the three with which I can honestly say that I would not be angry if it died. Except that I know many people who work there, so never mind. And you are completely correct about Michigan and Ohio. I know Southeast Michigan would lose more than 50% of jobs. Many of these are suppliers, not just automakers. My local paper had a headline on it this morning that said if the companies fell, Michigan would have the economy of a "nuclear wasteland".
Umm... He's still around actually. And still running for president. And still failing miserably. But he does get his ideas to be heard, and some of the things he says are too true for most people to believe, even though they need to. He's waaay too extreme left on some issues, but he has done his reasearch on the environment.
Actually, you are partly right. Most people seem to think that it is "Un-American". But these are the same people who think that socialism is a synonym for communism.
Bush couldn't run a pissup in a vodka warehouse, let alone an economy. Obama? Probably better. Let's hope they go bust after 5pm (UK time) on the 20th of January. Or, let's hope Bush goes because no-one knows what he'll do as a leaving day prank from going around DC in a shopping trolley to nuking Wales.
Some cars are just terribly styled anyway, the new Civic looks woeful. As does a lot of American cars.
If they went to Carey Street they would probably get bought out very quickly - hopefully safeguarding the jobs.
OMG that's embarassing! I DID know that! Though I've never driven the PT Cruiser, I did get to drive a PT Prowler for the day around Chicago, once.
The Cruiser would actually have been a hit, for me, if they'd kept the one iconic feature that is synonymous with that era - CHROME! That would have resolved, for me, the otherwise entirely inexplicable decision to build that car. The absence of chrome hands the car's comedy value a megaphone.
I love the PT Cruiser. It makes me think of the 1932 Ford Coupe and other cars of that era. It's an odd looking beast, but I'd drive one
I still don't agree with using taxpayer's money to rescue these companies. Same for the bank issue in the UK. If nobody wants your product, that's your cue to start making a product people DO want.
Right now the world is in recession. Smaller cars with more economical engines are what people want. And the Big Three US car companies don't cater enough to that, hence their problems and the success of the Japanese counterparts. V8s and V10s sound great and are fast as hell, but the majority of people can't afford to run them.
Imagine I started a business selling something nobody was buying. What do you think the government would do if I asked them to keep stumping up cash for me, even through I was running at a loss? I'd get laughed out.
Taxpayer's money should be used to benefit the people paying taxes. Public transport, public services, etc. Sales are supposed to generate the revenue to keep a company afloat.
I simply don't think that it's worth crucifying millions of workers and their families in order to shaft the 50 rich guys at the top of these companies. That's the basis for saying no to a rescue package.. because the effect of NOT helping out these manufacturers would do more harm to the economy than preventing them from collapsing.
For me, it'd be better to ditch the controlling influence of the 50 morons and save the livelihoods of the millions of others. I despise the way these companies have operated too.. but I see an opportunity to change things.
OR, sell the plants to Asian companies, with guarantees for the workforce. It has worked really well in Ohio with Honda, AFAIK. Those jobs aren't at risk right now.
There we go! They had how many $30 million a year executives flying in their private jets to Washington the other day to ask the government for a bailout. They want a bailout? How about knocking their $xx million per year down to $40 per hour like they pay the people who work for them. There's the bailout they need!
It will take me about 500 + years to make what they make in a year, and they are asking for a bailout?
Separate the company from the executives. I have no sympathy for the executives, as I keep saying. They can swing.. but the workforce don't deserve to go that way.
FTR, if the companies go down and the workforce lose their shirts, just understand that the executives will still be rich. If the company goes to the wall, the WRONG people will suffer.
so add a restriction to the bailout that requires executives paychecks not to exceed eg 500k... interestingly enough when germany tried that a lot of banks lost interest in the bailouts
The Cruiser was thought to be cool and retro for a while here, but its novelty wore off pretty quickly. I think there was a version or two with chrome on it, but there are too many special editions to count. (But I don't blame you, I can't name many cars being manufactured in Britain right now.almost as if there aren't any )
Back to topic, the companies cannot be allowed to get to the point where they need to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. No one would buy their cars, and they would be done for. If only there was some way to fire the corrupt executives (maybe there are some good ones left, I can't be certain). But they hold all the firing power themselves and convincing them they really don't want that job would probably take a jedi mind trick.
If the workers in my state lose their jobs however, it would add to the problems of the state with the worst economy in the US. Not cool. Most of these workers have families with children who won't be able to attend college now, because scolarships are rarer and the competition for these scolarships is better. On a side note, are there any LFS scholarships? No? Oh well, it was worth the try with all the tuition i'm going to need to help pay starting next fall.
I feel the need to rant a little right now on the policies of the Republican party. So just turn and face the other way...That's it. Now no one will get hurt. They pretty much effectively blocked the bailout, and the entire industry seems destined to go the way of the caveman (Oh noes! not cheesy Geico commercials!). I just don't understand their reasoning. The companies were losing money for a long time before this and blah blah blah, but the companies would have survived until their electric programs were able to be developed more fully. And they were going to get there, they have made huge strides. But to design a new car, especially with new technology, in the industry takes a fair bit of time, so an immediate turnaround could not be expected. Then the financial system died because of wrongdoing in that industry. This caused the automakers to lose money rapidly as their stocks fell through the floor along with everybody else's. Now those who caused this mess have their $700 billion. The Republicans passed that one through rather quickly. All the automakers are asking for is $25 billion out of the money already allocated. That means the government doesn't even have to spend more. The Republicans are saying now the automakers should die because they failed themselves, when in fact the Republican's deregulation policies really did the companies in. Arrrghhhhh!!!! I want to smack them on their dumb little heads with a tilapia!
To me, this just goes to show that the majority of Republican politicians just care about their own money and all the other big shots on Wall Street. I never identified myself with a political party before, even though I had some very leftist views, because there were one or two issues I actually agreed with them on. But as of today, I am a Democrat.
Sorry for the rant, but i had to get that off my chest. I can only hope that somehow this will all be okay...Think happy thoughts...happy thoughts...that's the ticket...
Bailing out is not addressing the issue. The big three (domestically), lets be honest, they are fundamentally flawed. Putting more money in does not changes the fact that no one wants to own an American cars anymore thesedays. They really dont have anyone to blame for their lack of innovation and their short termism. It is purely management problem, therefore i do not have any sympathy to the big three. A bail out is not the true love kiss in fairtales that would fixes everything. Investing more money in the big three would only delay the current situation. Let them go bankrupt and start over again.
Plus I'm not too concern about all the job loses. Because the demand for cars wouldn't suddenly fall significantly just because the big three went bankrupt. The demand is still there, and I'm pretty sure other automakers like Toyota, Honda, or even VW and BMW will make the most out of this chance.
As NSX said, no-one wants an American car anymore. And with good reason too. They handle like crap, have dashboards made from the trays you get in a box of biscuits, often are powered by large, lazy, inefficient engines that make less power than a modern unit with VVT and twin camshafts, that can produce the same, if not more power, using half the capacity and getting twice the miles per gallon.
In todays world people are paying more and more attention to car magazines and reviews before purchasing cars. It's been well noted that the American cars are not up to the standard (against the European cars at least, many of which being sold in the US), so until they realise that people don't want a 5.7L V8 with 250bhp giving you 20mpg, they'll never pull themselves out of the hole.
Only thing I'm worried about is that Ford own Aston (last time I checked), GM owned Saab and Vauxhall (two of my more favourite car manufacturers), and Chrysler I couldn't care for.
I saw an advertisement in a British paper a couple of weeks back.
Buy one Dodge (or could have been Chrysler, can't remember) <something crappy pile of shit> for £20,000, and get a second one for free. That's how desperate they are to shift cars.
Except that no current GM Vehicle has a 5.7L engine. They don't even have a V8 engine that makes less then 300HP. And there is no GM vehicle that gets less then 20mpg highway, except for their trucks and SUVs. But the comparable Toyota trucks get the same fuel economy. I understand the point of your post, and I agree with your point. But I don't agree with the fact that you posted uneducated, wrong data.
Ford does not have any 5.7L engines either. I think Chrysler may have a 5.7L engine in a few of their cars, though. But it definitely makes more then 250HP. I don't see what's wrong with a 5.7L engine anyway. Toyota has an engine of that size in their full size truck. But it does have considerably more power then a comparable American-made engine of simmilar displacement, because I believe the V8 in the Toyota is DOHC.
So, you said that American cars have 5.7L engines with 250HP and that get 20mpg. Are you saying that European cars have 2.85L engines with 275HP and that get 40mpg?
It depends on the car.
By the way, it should be noted that I am not disagreeing that most American cars have fewer technological advancements compared to European cars. But it's the fact that you post random "data" that does not make sense and is inaccurate that I find aggravating.
Seriously, you didn't read S14's example as a simple fictional example to carry the point? You thought he actually was saying that all American cars have 5.7L 250HP engines delivering precisely 20mpg?
Though i do love me some Top Gear...
I DID know that! Though I've never driven the PT Cruiser, I did get to drive a PT Prowler for the day around Chicago, once. 
)
