GM To Close 4 Truck/SUV Plants and Retool Another GasHawgAssembly Line - WAY Too Late Guys !

Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:08:41 -0400, Bama Brian
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh no, Jerry. I blame the inordinate divergence in wealth that has
>>>> taken
>>>> place under the butt kissing fascist Republicans. The small peckered
>>>> butt
>>>> suckers ended up with the loot and they used it to buy "macho" cars.
>>>
>>> Jerry didn't write what you are responding to. I did.
>>>
>>> Detroit brought out economy cars in response to public desires. First,
>>> during the late 1950's, and again in 1973. But American interest moved
>>> away from them each time towards bigger and more comfortable cars.
>>>
>>> Blame anyone you want, Trucker. But it's buyers who set the trends and
>>> not the industries.
>>
>>
>> And the millions they spend on advertising don't have anything to do
>> with it, aye?
>
> Let me suggest that advertising works, because the people believe in the
> message that the advertising is meant to deliver.

If you've got a known market, advertising works to educate prospective
buyers to at least look at your product. It does not, and I say it
again, does not work to create a demand where none exists.

Hunt up Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs for a reasonable idea of why
advertising works.

--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2008-06-05, Bama Brian > wrote:
>>
>>> Blame anyone you want, Trucker. But it's buyers who set the trends and
>>> not the industries.
>>
>> What annoys me about the whole SUV thing is how people ignore the
>> mid-late 80s. That was the big kick up in CAFE. Automakers dropped most
>> of their big cars and started building smaller FWD cars. People quickly
>> began rejecting these and started buying those covered trucks in the
>> corner of the lot with the hose-out vinyl interiors and the like.
>>
>> The marketeers in detroit just aren't bright enough to pull off the SUV
>> fad as a mass-market manipulation. What they do is see a trend in the
>> sales figures and exploit it. The brighter ones ask why Bronco and
>> Blazer sales jumped up all of a sudden after making the things for 20
>> years. They find out people are switching from station wagons and large
>> sedans... Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can come up with
>> the next step... put a nice interior in the truck.
>>
>> Today what did these marketeers do? If they were the 'masterminds' that
>> the typical anti-business environmentalist thinks they are they should
>> have been way ahead of the curve. Just as before they are behind it.
>> Sales figures on SUVs drop as small cars increase and now they are
>> reacting... after the fact just as on the SUV upswing.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You "react" to changing conditions. If you do not "react" quickly
> enough, you end up with a whole lot of problems.

Japanese corporations tend to do things differently. For one thing,
they create independent companies to help them differentiate their
product lines. Look at Toyota, which created Lexus, and more lately,
Scion, and Nissan which created Infiniti, or even Honda which created
Acura. Then, if the new company fails, it can be harvested by the
parent company without the stigma of failure attached to the parent
company's name.

American corporations tended to buy up the competition and run it into
the ground, as Chrysler did with Dodge, Plymouth, De Soto and Jeep.
General Motors over the years bought up Chevy, Buick, Oldsmobile,
Pontiac, LaSalle and Cadillac. Only recently has it tried to create a
new company with Saturn. Yet even Saturn has now become only another
"me too" company selling products similar to what you can find at a
Chevy dealer. GM has failed Product Differentiation 101, IMNSHO, and
will soon shut down another major brand.

--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

On Jun 5, 7:08*am, Bama Brian > wrote:
> The Trucker wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:51:21 -0400, Bama Brian wrote:
>
> >> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> >> Problem is, we criticize the American car companies and praise the
> >> imports. *Yet year after year we kept on buying the biggest, most
> >> comfortable cars because we could afford the gas and we could make those
> >> monthly payments - even when the payments became leaseholds instead of
> >> ownership.
>
> > No, Jerry.... *The Republicans with lots of dough and little tallywackers
> > (and the lots of pretenders) were buying those Viagramobiles.
>
> >> So now gas is expensive and we all want to blame the car companies for
> >> not producing fuel efficient vehicles. *Blame ourselves instead for not
> >> buying them.
>
> > Oh no, Jerry. *I blame the inordinate divergence in wealth that has taken
> > place under the butt kissing fascist Republicans. The small peckered butt
> > suckers ended up with the loot and they used it to buy "macho" cars.
>
> Jerry didn't write what you are responding to. *I did.
>
> Detroit brought out economy cars in response to public desires. *First,
> during the late 1950's, and again in 1973. *But American interest moved
> away from them each time towards bigger and more comfortable cars.
>
> Blame anyone you want, Trucker. *But it's buyers who set the trends and
> not the industries.
>
> --
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
> George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
>
> Cheers,
> Bama Brian
> Libertarian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep, the buying public campained for small, economical cars. The
industry built some and found out dthat the buying public had been
lying to them. They didn't want small, economic cars and wouldn't buy
them. What the public really wanted was a Cadillac that got the
mileage and cost the same as a VW bug. They refused to buy basic
transportation.

A little history - the Ford Edsel was touted as, and began as, a
project to build an ecomical car. By the time it hit the floor the
design had turned into just another over weight and size elephant. It
was also one of the worst cars Ford ever produced...of course there
were only a handful that were actual 'edsels'. Many were cobbled
together from standard ford parts wrapped in one dog of a design and
produced on a Ford production line.

There was a book on the history of Ford in the local library layign
that out. I can't recall the name but will go looking next time I am
in there.

Harry K

"yedyegiss" > wrote in message
...
> What Me Worry? wrote:
>
>> "Scott Erb" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Yeah, when GM does this it shows that they know the age of cheap oil
>>>is OVER. I remember in the early 90s I was driving a Geo Metro and
>>>once got 50 MPG! And that wasn't even a hybrid. I bet GM wishes they
>>>hadn't phased that car out.
>> All they gotta do is dust off those old plans, make a few body style
>> changes, and crank 'em out again in the same factories. Gee, re-using
>> successful car designs to save money in engineering and tooling? What a
>> concept!!
>
> Since GM didn't actually build the "Geo Metro," that would be a neat
> trick. It was a re-badged Suzuki Swift. Suzuki has since introduced a
> newer version of the Swift, and if GM really wanted to that badly, they
> could re-badge it again as a new "Geo Metro" or "Chevrolet Spectrum."
> But they won't; they rebadged the Korian Daewoo Kalos as the "Chevrolet
> Aveo" instead.
>
> GM could also bring in the Opel Corsa and Agila, and rebadge them as
> Saturns, as they've already done with the Opel/Saturn Astra.

What we need are Toyota Corollas rebadged as Geo Prizms, built in US
factories. Corollas get almost 40MPG with plenty of leg room, great
handling, very few compromises. No hybrid motors and heavy batteries - just
a smooth-as-silk 4-cylinder gasoline engine that goes farther than 3 gas-hog
SUV's on a gallon of gas.

wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:08:12 -0400, Bama Brian
> > wrote:
>
>>>> And the millions they spend on advertising don't have anything to do
>>>> with it, aye?
>>> Let me suggest that advertising works, because the people believe in the
>>> message that the advertising is meant to deliver.
>> If you've got a known market, advertising works to educate prospective
>> buyers to at least look at your product. It does not, and I say it
>> again, does not work to create a demand where none exists.
>
> Where was the demand for pet rocks before the ad campaign?

Never was one. Nor was there an ad campaign. It was one of those
popular word of mouth fads. It came, it went.

Try selling pet rocks today, even with an ad campaign. Prepare to go broke.

>> Hunt up Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs for a reasonable idea of why
>> advertising works.
>


--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
>
>> On Jun 3, 2:09 pm, "Jerry Okamura" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Scott Erb" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 3, 2:49 pm, "What Me Worry?" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "B1ackwater" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors announced plans Tuesday to
>>>>>> shut four truck and SUV plants that employ thousands of workers,
>>>>>> saying high gas prices are here to stay - and, with them, consumers'
>>>>>> growing preference for more fuel efficient vehicles.
>>>
>>>>>> At a news conference in Wilmington, Del., GM Chairman and CEO Rick
>>>>>> Wagoner announced plans to roll out more fuel-efficient vehicles,
>>>>>> including approval to start the production process on a vehicle that
>>>>>> can run gas-free for trips up to 40 miles.
>>>
>>>>>> But the plant closing plans - and Wagoner's forecasts for oil and gas
>>>>>> prices going forward - are a stunning admission from the nation's
>>>>>> largest automaker that its long dependence on large SUVs and pickups
>>>>>> for profit and sales is no longer a viable strategy for a company
>>>>>> struggling to end losses from its North American operations.
>>>
>>>>>> The plants to be closed include two U.S. facilities - the Moraine,
>>>>>> Ohio plant that builds midsize SUVs, such as the Chevrolet
>>>>>> Trailblazer
>>>>>> and GMC Envoy and the Janesville, Wis., assembly line that builds
>>>>>> large SUVs such as the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban and GMC Yukon. In
>>>>>> addition, it plans to close a pickup plant in Oshawa, Canada, and a
>>>>>> truck plant in Toluca, Mexico.
>>>
>>>>>> - - - - -
>>>
>>>>>> Yay !!! (except for the lay-offs)
>>>
>>>>>> They should have quit making those gas hawgs three
>>>>>> or four YEARS ago.
>>>
>>>>>> Instead, they just spent more money on ad campaigns
>>>>>> designed to sucker the fools into buying them. You
>>>>>> ain't a macho man (or concerned soccer-mom) if your
>>>>>> car gets over 10-MPG dammit !!!
>>>
>>>>>> "Approval to start the production process" ... on the
>>>>>> new decent-mileage replacements eh ? How long does it
>>>>>> take to tool-up for a new vehicle and get the whole
>>>>>> parts-supply and assembly-line issues ironed out ?
>>>>>> Probably a couple of years.
>>>
>>>>>> Coulda spent those years, and the ad-campaign money,
>>>>>> actually getting the replacements ready to go.
>>>
>>>>>> Dumb-asses.
>>>
>>>>>> I feel kinda sorry for the plant workers (except the
>>>>>> Mexicans). They're at the mercy of their pointy-haired
>>>>>> bosses. Now they're at the mercy of the unemployment
>>>>>> system ... and no doubt the NEW production line will
>>>>>> be more automated, meaning only half of them have a
>>>>>> chance of being re-hired.
>>>
>>>>>> I wonder what they'll wanna sell those quasi-electrics
>>>>>> for ? $50,000 probably ... but if money and employment
>>>>>> are tight, who's gonna be able to BUY them ? What the
>>>>>> USA needed was a quasi-electric "SmartCar" clone for
>>>>>> $13,999 out the door .....
>>>
>>>>> B1ackie, it's scary how much we think alike sometimes. I wouldn't
>>>>> give
>>>>> you
>>>>> two cents for a truckload of GM execs. They're Grade-A numbskulls,
>>>>> IMO.
>>>>> I
>>>>> remember seeing a documentary about GM where they interviewed execs
>>>>> who
>>>>> whined incessantly about how unfair it all was that Japan was kicking
>>>>> their
>>>>> sorry asses. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. They have
>>>>> nobody to
>>>>> blame but themselves, IMO.
>>>
>>>>> Americans aren't ready to hear that the good times are over, and
>>>>> they're
>>>>> going to have to scale back. They did it in the late '70's, and
>>>>> they're
>>>>> going to have to do it again, only this time it's not going to end
>>>>> quickly,
>>>>> I fear.
>>>
>>>> Yeah, when GM does this it shows that they know the age of cheap oil
>>>> is OVER. I remember in the early 90s I was driving a Geo Metro and
>>>> once got 50 MPG! And that wasn't even a hybrid. I bet GM wishes they
>>>> hadn't phased that car out.
>>>
>>> If they could sell a ton of those cars at the time, do you for a second
>>> believe they would have "phased them out"? Or could it just be that
>>> they
>>> phased them out, because they could not sell a ton of these cars at the
>>> time?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> I like the irony of the OP and replies thereto. GM builds and sells
>> only what they can sell, thus the SUV and the like. Now they are
>> downsizing vehicles but it is GMs fault that the buying public were
>> idiots for so many years. Yep, that is logic for ya.
>
> There was more profit in bigger cars. So they pushed them.

There is NO profit in small cars. But don't blame GM for that.

It has to do with the generous union benefits, including health care
which is soaring in cost. Labor costs like those are fairly fixed--a
worker gets the same benefits whether the assembly line he's on makes
big cars or small cars. For a small car, GM's profit margin is
miniscule (and for the low-end cars, they even take a loss); whereas for
a larger car, they make a decent profit.

Honda and Toyota can make a nice profit on small cars because, being
non-union, their labor costs are lower. And other nations subsidize the
health care of their workers, whereas American corporations like GM have
to foot the entire bill themselves.


--
Steven L.
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:03:13 -0400, Bama Brian
> > wrote:
>
>> If advertising could create a demand where none exists, the Hummer
>> wouldn't be in trouble today. All that advertising can do is to sell
>> something where a market already exists.
>
> Utter poppycock. Merely because it cannot always create a demand
> (Hummers) doesn't mean it can't do it at times. If it was as powerless
> as you profess they wouldn't spend the kind of money on it they do.
>
> Advertising is very effective to drive people who want something to a
> higher more profitable choice, etc.
>
> The markup on SUVs is far greater than on fuel efficient smaller cars.

But as I said to Jeffrey Turner, that's because American workers get
generous union benefits, which are relatively fixed. These workers
don't get less benefits for building smaller cars. GM and Ford will
tell you that they are drowning trying to provide health care to all
their workers (and all their retired workers), as health care costs
continue to soar. Other nations' companies don't have that problem
because either they're non-union (Japan), or their governments pay
health care for them (Europe).



--
Steven L.
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-06-05, Bama Brian > wrote:
>
>> Blame anyone you want, Trucker. But it's buyers who set the trends and
>> not the industries.
>
> What annoys me about the whole SUV thing is how people ignore the
> mid-late 80s. That was the big kick up in CAFE. Automakers dropped most
> of their big cars and started building smaller FWD cars. People quickly
> began rejecting these and started buying those covered trucks in the
> corner of the lot with the hose-out vinyl interiors and the like.
>
> The marketeers in detroit just aren't bright enough to pull off the SUV
> fad as a mass-market manipulation.

No, but they pulled the SUV fad as a way to get around CAFE (fuel
economy) requirements.

SUVs were (and still are?) not required to have the CAFE requirements of
cars. They're considered equivalent to trucks. Hence armed with that
loophole, Detroit found it relatively easy to build giant luxurious
vehicles as SUVs, without the engineering tradeoffs and higher cost
required to make big vehicles fuel-efficient.

If SUVs had been classified as cars for the purpose of CAFE, I'll bet
that would have nipped the SUV fad in the bud. Because fuel economy
standards would be MUCH harder to meet years ago before hybrid engines
and other new technologies came along.


--
Steven L.
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

On 2008-06-07, Steven L. > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-06-05, Bama Brian > wrote:
>>
>>> Blame anyone you want, Trucker. But it's buyers who set the trends and
>>> not the industries.
>>
>> What annoys me about the whole SUV thing is how people ignore the
>> mid-late 80s. That was the big kick up in CAFE. Automakers dropped most
>> of their big cars and started building smaller FWD cars. People quickly
>> began rejecting these and started buying those covered trucks in the
>> corner of the lot with the hose-out vinyl interiors and the like.
>>
>> The marketeers in detroit just aren't bright enough to pull off the SUV
>> fad as a mass-market manipulation.
>
> No, but they pulled the SUV fad as a way to get around CAFE (fuel
> economy) requirements.

Bull****. The automakers did exactly what our masters in the federal
government wanted. They eliminated nearly all the big passenger cars in
favor of downsized front wheel drive cars. The customers REJECTED the
downsized FWD cars and bought trucks. Automakers did what they HAD TO DO
to stay in business, supply the vehicles people were buying.

> SUVs were (and still are?) not required to have the CAFE requirements of
> cars. They're considered equivalent to trucks. Hence armed with that
> loophole, Detroit found it relatively easy to build giant luxurious
> vehicles as SUVs, without the engineering tradeoffs and higher cost
> required to make big vehicles fuel-efficient.

This is what happens when government interferes with the marketplace,
unintended consquences as CUSTOMERS needs and wants do not change with
government fiat.

> If SUVs had been classified as cars for the purpose of CAFE, I'll bet
> that would have nipped the SUV fad in the bud. Because fuel economy
> standards would be MUCH harder to meet years ago before hybrid engines
> and other new technologies came along.

The solution to market interference of effectively banning something is
not to effectively ban more things. If light trucks had the same CAFE
requirement as passenger cars the probable outcomes IMO would have been
one of the following:

1) The major US automakers go out of business or leave the US
marketplace along with numerous imports. Consumer choice shrinks to just
a few models that comply with government rules. Most people choose to
rebuild their old cars again and again.

2) All/most automakers in the USA ignore CAFE requirements and pass the
penalties on to the buyers as taxes on the purchase of an automobile.

3) buyers instead react by buying vehicles of over 8000lbs gross vehicle
weight.

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:22:35 -0400, Steven L. wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:03:13 -0400, Bama Brian
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If advertising could create a demand where none exists, the Hummer
>>> wouldn't be in trouble today. All that advertising can do is to sell
>>> something where a market already exists.
>>
>> Utter poppycock. Merely because it cannot always create a demand
>> (Hummers) doesn't mean it can't do it at times. If it was as powerless
>> as you profess they wouldn't spend the kind of money on it they do.
>>
>> Advertising is very effective to drive people who want something to a
>> higher more profitable choice, etc.
>>
>> The markup on SUVs is far greater than on fuel efficient smaller cars.
>
> But as I said to Jeffrey Turner, that's because American workers get
> generous union benefits, which are relatively fixed. These workers
> don't get less benefits for building smaller cars. GM and Ford will
> tell you that they are drowning trying to provide health care to all
> their workers (and all their retired workers), as health care costs
> continue to soar. Other nations' companies don't have that problem
> because either they're non-union (Japan), or their governments pay
> health care for them (Europe).

So lets get cracking on the NHI.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend