No help or wrong help for Detroit?

Comments4u wrote:
> With automotive supplies (Delphi, J L French, and now Dana)
> running for bankruptcy protection, it must be wondered if GM
> and Ford can be far behind.

There is a concept of "Too Bog To Fail" that will ultimately be brought
into play here as it was with Chryslar in 1979.

> The President has vowed no help
> for Detroit, and cautioned the automakers about their obligation
> to their retirees.

That's pure bull****. The government (you and me) are already on the
hook through the PBGC for underfunded pension plans. The already
insolvent PBGC will go further in the red when they have to pick up
those huge plans. The retirees will get screwed because they will get
cents on the dollar.

> Of course, when government spending exceeds
> income, the government merely prints more money, an option that
> is skewing the President's thinking.

Have no idea how his relates to GM and Ford.

>
> It would seem, as a self-proclaimed war president, the President
> would want to retain war capable American companies. Nothing
> matches this description better than the auto companies. And if
> he were to come to this conclusion, it is obvious he would throw
> money at the problem, as that is always his solution. Yet money
> for Detroit is not the answer.


And we are even farther afield here.

>
> The typical demand of the critics is that Detroit must compete.
> The implication is that Detroit isn't building good products.
> What this ignores is two of the the big three factors of selling
> products: product quality, distribution, and quantity of
> competition.


Naw, the big three built up a reputation of building largely dull cars
that had quality problems while the competition put out cars that had
fewer problems. The quality problems are now not as severe, but the
image continues.

The other issue killing detroit makers is their cost of unionized
labor.

>
> "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your
> door"? That's factor one, but its still not enough. Yet that's
> the shallow single demand of the critics.
>
> People will not make excessive efforts to seek out the best
> product. They will make reasonable efforts. It has to be
> convenient. Having a good product is not enough, and, in fact,
> terrible products capture market share. Yugo is a perfect
> example. If what the critics say were true, Yugo wouldn't have
> sold a single unit.

But they will go in droves to the Toyota and Nissan dealer down the
street if they offer a reliable car that looks and drives good. And
that's what happened.


>
> Another enlightening example is the history of minivans. In
> the 80s, the Chrysler vans were the pick of the class. Yet
> mediocre products such as Ford's Aerostar and GM's Astro got
> significant market share. Even some of the hideous looking and
> ill handling conversions of Tokyo delivery vans by Toyota
> and Nissan were sold.
>
> The Ford and GM products sold because of great distribution. The
> Asian products sold because of reasonable distribution and the
> inability of their buyers to look beyond the nameplate and see
> the products for the mediocre commercial vehicles they really
> were, ill suited to passenger use.


Naw, that has nothinbg to do with it. It is the image and reality of a
quality car at a decent price pure and simple that attracts people to
asian cars.

>
> It can be expected that the President will remain in denial until
> the last possible moment. The ability to deny - and the ablity
> of the person to believe his own denial - dies hard. Even
> attending dozens of AA meetings can't change this.

What does it mean to "be in denial"? I've heard that psycho-babble
phrase so often but it means nothing. And what makes you think he is
attending AA meetings.


>
> Then a public outpour of criticism, similar to the post-Katrina
> rantings, will prompt the President to throw money at the problem.
> This is not certain, but probable, as the President would first
> have to find an automotive services company run by cronies, in
> the mold of Haliburton, to which he could award the contract.


Naw, "Too Big To Fail" will be resurrected once again to justify a
bailout.

>
> The real problem lies in the quantity of competition factor. Its
> model and brand proliferation. Having a good product - or even
> the best product - isn't enough to overcome the onslaught of every
> automaker wanting a piece of the American market.

That's nonsense. Quality (the lack of) is what gto detroit makers into
trouble. Decades ago they had the market but became so arrogant and
complacent that they failed to take account of who their competition
was and the kind of products they were capable of making. And they
have been falling further behind ever since.

> The fact that
> most that attempt will eventually fail doesn't solve the problem.
>
> The actual solution is reduction in brands and models. A
> prohibition on new brands would prevent disruption by those
> marginal players likely to fail anyway. Telling Honda, Toyota,
> and Nissan they must each reduce the number of models offered
> by one or two would clear a market currently so crowded people
> can't even learn of all the choices.

Possibly could help the detroit makers to reduce their lines if coupled
with a real move toward quality products. And if they cut labor costs.
GM's attempt at building a car using japanese techniques failed
miserably. The Saturn turned out to be a piece of junk.

Why should we tell Toyota to stop making a definitively better product
that consumers want. That makes no sense whatsoever.

>
> If brand and model limitation and reduction were enacted, the
> remaining question for the President would be whether
> Daimler-Chrysler, though not an American company, qualified as
> one that can be relied upon as a war industry, and thus provided
> protection, or as a foreign company to be ordered to reduce model
> offerings. Superficially, it seems foreign status would apply,
> and Daimler-Chrysler be considered an enemy company, not a friendly one.

This is so far out in left field....

>
> However, the practical matter is that Daimler-Chrysler should
> receive the same benefits as GM and Ford. The cooperation of
> Daimler-Chrysler in war production might not be voluntary, but it
> can be counted upon. After all, the President has the advantage
> of enforcement, since the US occuation forces from World War II
> remain in Germany. Protectorates tend to be compliant.

Whaaaaattt???? You are nuts!

On 8 Mar 2006 15:22:20 -0800, "John S." > wrote:

(snip some flames)

(snip some more flames)

(snip unglued flames)

(etc)

Hey John.... new around here?

"edward ohare" > wrote in message
...
> On 8 Mar 2006 15:22:20 -0800, "John S." > wrote:
>
> (snip some flames)
>
> (snip some more flames)
>
> (snip unglued flames)
>
> (etc)
>
> Hey John.... new around here?
>
>

And thank you for crossposting!

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:48:44 -0500, "Joe" > wrote:


>And thank you for crossposting!


Like, how was I to know where he was? <G>

"John S." > wrote in message
ups.com...

> But they will go in droves to the Toyota and Nissan dealer down the
> street if they offer a reliable car that looks and drives good. And
> that's what happened.
>

Yes, that happened in the 80's most certainly. On one hand you had
General Motors with the computer-controlled Varajet that the garden
variety mechanic could not make head nor tail of, in a big old boat
of a car that sucked gas like no tomorrow. On the other hand you had
the imports with fuel injection and small gas saving cars easy to fix.

But today it's not true anymore. Take a look at the warranties offered
by the domestics and foreign manufacturers, they are all the same 3/36
If the imports were so much more reliable their warranties would be longer.

>
> Naw, that has nothinbg to do with it. It is the image and reality of a
> quality car at a decent price pure and simple that attracts people to
> asian cars.
>

Operative word there is image. The domestics hurt themselves by
having bad quality in the late 70's early 80s as compared to the imports.
Unfortunately that gave Generation X an image and that image
hasn't changed with that generation. They will be buying imports until they
die,
and they are influencing their parents purchases today, which 30 years
ago was unheard of.

When your parents (if they are still alive that is) were in their 20's, they
would have never been asked for advice on purchasing anything by
your grandparents. That has changed 180 degrees today, and it
started with the Gen Xers because they were the first generation to
be young enough to climb into the computer and information culture.
The generation that is following Gen X was raised in the computer
culture, you see, and they will not have the same influence over their
parents - the Gen X'ers - as the Gen X'ers have today over their own
parents, the baby boomers, because both the Gen Xers and their children
are of the same information culture.

When historians look back 100 years today they will point to the 1990's
as the decade that American culture started the Information Age and
ended the Industrial Age. The Gen Xers were on the cusp of that
change and as a result they are rapidly gaining far more power in shaping
the culture than most generations had. The Baby Boomers had that
same power as well and they use it to change people's attitudes towards
each other. In the 60's they used it to promote tolerance, and today they
are using it to promote intolerance. The GenXers power isn't in
that area, instead the Gen Xers power is in changing people's attitudes
towards how they make an effect in the material world. That's why
the Gen Xers are so interested in people's effect on the environment,
and that's why they are so interested in how corporations use
employees, etc. The big 3 automakers in Detroit still haven't
figured this out in their marketing, the foreign automakers have, though.

>
> What does it mean to "be in denial"? I've heard that psycho-babble
> phrase so often but it means nothing.

A person who is in denial is a person who continues to believe his own
view of the world, after being presented with irrefutable evidence that
his world view does not agree with the actual world itself. That is a
pretty basic definition that anyone knows it is not psycho-babble.

The poster apparently thinks that Bush firmly believes Ford and GM will
be able to pull themselves up out of their own holes without government
help, and the poster thinks the reality is that they can't do it, and that
proof of that has been shown to Bush who is refusing to believe it. Of
course this is a rather preposterous set of suppositions, but this is what
it means.

>
> Naw, "Too Big To Fail" will be resurrected once again to justify a
> bailout.
>

Or more likely a merger. The Justice Department has been approving
quite a lot of corporate mergers that in prior years would have been
considered violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Most likely what
the President has been told by his economic advisors is that if
General Motors bought Ford, that it would not create a trust because
on a global scale there's many many many automakers out there, and
that the US citizens would still have many many choices. And those
advisors have probably been sold the line that if those two companies
merged that it would so greatly increase the manufacturing economies of
scale that it would allow GM to spend even less money manufacturing
a car, thus the combined entity would become very profitable.

Of course these same advisors seem to think that Goliaths in government
organizations are wasteful and a Bad Thing, which goes to show that
people have the capability of believing that two completely opposite
statements are both true at the same time.

>
> That's nonsense. Quality (the lack of) is what gto detroit makers into
> trouble. Decades ago they had the market but became so arrogant and
> complacent that they failed to take account of who their competition
> was and the kind of products they were capable of making. And they
> have been falling further behind ever since.
>

The exact same thing would happen to the foreign car makers if they
"had the market" If we don't have domestic car makers left then
what will we do?

> GM's attempt at building a car using japanese techniques failed
> miserably. The Saturn turned out to be a piece of junk.
>

That isn't why Saturn isn't doing well. Saturn isn't doing well because
GM totally underestimated how hypocritical American consumers
really are. For years and years since time out of mind the American
consumer has ranked the honesty of the typical car dealer somewhat
on the level of the average lawyer, and complained endlessly about
how they couldn't stand to haggle when purchasing cars. GM fell for
that line and created the no-haggle sale. Then they discovered years
later that only a small percentage of American consumers actually
were serious about not wanting to no-haggle a car sale, the rest of
them may have bitched a blue streak about having to dicker, but
when cash started talking and bull**** started walking, most consumers
figured they would get a better deal down the street from the dealer
willing to haggle.

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Or more likely a merger. The Justice Department has been approving
> quite a lot of corporate mergers that in prior years would have been
> considered violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Most likely what
> the President has been told by his economic advisors is that if
> General Motors bought Ford, that it would not create a trust because
> on a global scale there's many many many automakers out there, and
> that the US citizens would still have many many choices. And those
> advisors have probably been sold the line that if those two companies
> merged that it would so greatly increase the manufacturing economies of
> scale that it would allow GM to spend even less money manufacturing
> a car, thus the combined entity would become very profitable.
>

If GM buys Ford, both Henry Ford and William C. Durant will turn over in
their graves. . . . There will be a big earthquake in Detroit.

Charles of Schaumburg.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> ...Then they discovered years
> later that only a small percentage of American consumers actually
> were serious about not wanting to no-haggle a car sale, the rest of
> them may have bitched a blue streak about having to dicker, but
> when cash started talking and bull**** started walking, most consumers
> figured they would get a better deal down the street from the dealer
> willing to haggle.

LOL! Ted - you need to coyright that sentence. That's funny I don't
care who you are!!

Actually there's a dealer in the small town where I live that some would
claim invented the no-haggle deal (probably 45 years ago). He's
outsurvived all the other dealers in town, which flat out disappeared,
went out of business, or changed hands several times over the same
period of time. But, I think you're right in general - he's the
exception that proved the rule - to use another cliché.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:56:09 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Or more likely a merger.

Gawd. GM and Ford merge? I sure hope fscking not. Japan can support a
half-dozen car companies but the Americans can only compete if they get
down to one?

n5hsr wrote:

> If GM buys Ford, both Henry Ford and William C. Durant will turn over in
> their graves. . . . There will be a big earthquake in Detroit.

....and it'll be impossible to tell by looking that there's been a big
earthquake in Detroit, which is already a deserted, crime-ridden,
broken-down, rotting, ugly hellhole.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:01:02 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>> ...Then they discovered years
>> later that only a small percentage of American consumers actually
>> were serious about not wanting to no-haggle a car sale, the rest of
>> them may have bitched a blue streak about having to dicker, but
>> when cash started talking and bull**** started walking, most consumers
>> figured they would get a better deal down the street from the dealer
>> willing to haggle.

Because they did!

>Actually there's a dealer in the small town where I live that some would
>claim invented the no-haggle deal (probably 45 years ago). He's
>outsurvived all the other dealers in town, which flat out disappeared,
>went out of business, or changed hands several times over the same
>period of time. But, I think you're right in general - he's the
>exception that proved the rule - to use another cliché.

He would be the exception. When Saturn first offered the no haggle
"deal", the profit margin on the cars was far higher than any other GM
brand. What people want, and your local dealer must have offered, is
to be able to buy a car at a fair price without having to spend days
doing so.

The fact that dealers steal your keys when they test drive your trade
tells it all.

*************************
Dave