The big three are in the tank

[Gerald Pierce]

More from the rag Tom posted from:

It is time for U.S. policy to place the needs and survival of its own manufacturing sector first. To do so will require the U.S. to demand that the Japanese allow the yen to regain its undistorted value. Japan must be pressed to bring its currency into alignment and trim its excessive currency reserves.

IMHO, this is BS. There is a free market, no one is being forced to buy Japanese vehicles (or german, or korean, or swedish) -- they do it because they want to. What swayed me to the other side? A truck that could not keep a set of tires more than 30k miles, a tranny that I lived in constant fear of it going bad, piss poor gas mileage, and the future generation of the same vehicle having issues right out of the gate -- can we say "tranny" class??



How long do you buy just on the name? I drove Fords, with a scattering of Mopar, for 30 years, and would have supported them again if their product was competitive for me. My ST was never a problem child, except for tires. Dealer found every excuse in the book for why the tires wore funny, but could never make it stop. I still have the Focus and a Sable, and will keep them around for the kids.



My new vehicle gets 19.2 mph around town with the same size engine, and as for the 4k in profit back to Japan, well, if GM, FOMOCO, DC did not see the train coming, sucks to be them. They could have restructured long ago, but there was to much pressure from the Union to pay folks these inflated salaries and provide crazy retirement and healthcare packages.



I hope the bailout is not approved without serious strings attached. (more than were placed on the banks -- we see what that is doing -- they are using the money to buy more crappy banks instead of buying bad paper).

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TrainTrac,



Thanks for posting the reminder of the rules. If people on this thread would have followed the rule above the one you highlighted, the one about treating others with respect, then I doubt the violation of the 2nd rule would have happened.



Personally I find snide, sarcastic remarks much more immature and more offensive than a curse word as the former show an often veiled, underhanded level of snide contempt towards others. At least with a curse directed at another the one doing the cursing "mans up" and says exactly what they mean. No chicken crap sarcasm.



I find it ironic that people here are often "jerk like", and figuratively pi$$ in the Cheerios of others, and then when someone takes offense to their words and actions and calls them on it by cursing at them they get all: "Hey buddy, follow the rules!"



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

IMHO, this is BS. There is a free market, no one is being forced to buy Japanese vehicles (or german, or korean, or swedish) -- they do it because they want to.

And given an unfair advantage to sell those cars with a larget profit margin is good for America?



Sad, sad, sad.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



I'm not sure what your comment means?



What is the "unfair advantage" you are describing?



Some have requested larger tarrifs on imported autos in order to level the playing field. Do you think that is a good idea.



I don't because that sounds like "bigger government" to me.



Whenever the government steps in and adds taxes or tarrifs to a product because they want to dissuade the American consumer from buying it (which is really what we are talking about with such a tarrif) then we essentially are being told by our government what we can and can't buy.



I look at buying imports akin to buying cigarettes or alcohol. Sure, the governement could tax or tarrif the heck of out imports, but just like cigarettes and alcohol there are those that will still buy them. Granted, there will be fewer, but it will still happen.



POINT TO PONDER: Given that most imports are already more expensive then equivalent domestic vehicles, we really have to ask ourselves should we try to protect the slipping domestic sales through goverment regulations on imports, or should we instead tell Detroit to wake up and make cars people want?



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Some have requested larger tarrifs on imported autos in order to level the playing field. Do you think that is a good idea.

I believe in reciprocal tarriffs. If you were to not allow me to sell my cars there, you can not sell them here. If you charge no tarriff on my cars, I charge you nothing to sell them here. You charge me 70%, I charge you 70%.

I don't because that sounds like "bigger government" to me.



Whenever the government steps in and adds taxes or tarrifs to a product because they want to dissuade the American consumer from buying it (which is really what we are talking about with such a tarrif) then we essentially are being told by our government what we can and can't buy.

Are you aware that Japan tells thier automakers what to build and gives them money to do it?





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Reciprocal tarrifs are great in concept, but the reality is that Japan would never be a large consumer of American automobiles as they simply have so very few cars per capita, and frankly, the Japanese consumer is very japanese brand loyal.



The US has so many more vehicle consumers. We have given the consumers choices, and more are choosing imports, and even paying more for them. That's not about an unlevel playing field, that's about people wanting what they want, and the domestics not delivering.



Yes, I am aware that Japan has many governmental restrictions on their companies. I work actively with large Japanese companies as clients. But still, I was talking about what I want from MY government...and what I want is LESS government, not more.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Yes, I am aware that Japan has many governmental restrictions on their companies. I work actively with large Japanese companies as clients. But still, I was talking about what I want from MY government...and what I want is LESS government, not more.

Making a blanket statement that when the government gets involved stuff screws up is not always true. Our auto industry is fighting Japan and not just Toyota and Honda. The Japanese government tells Toyota what to build and pays them to design it. They then sell them here with little to no investment and then expect our industry to compete. We then blame it on unions and bad managment.





Tom

 

[Nelson Atwell]

You can't place an import tariff on a car manufactured in the USA. The majority of Toyotas and Nissans sold here are made here. However a lot of the US brands are made in Canada and Mexico. So what are you proposing to do about that Tom? Put tariffs on Chevys and Fords???

 

[Les]

The Japanese government tells Toyota what to build and pays them to design it. They then sell them here with little to no investment and then expect our industry to compete.

Lets presume this is true, if the consumer finds Japanese products (regardless of how they become to exist) more attractive, then the American manufacturers should consider their archaic view of what we want. If a manufacturer is offering something, regardless of its origin, that as a consumer I find appealing and will purchase, then continuing to try to sell me something I don't find as appealing is not going to work.



Does our industry need to compete, yes they do, but they need to be more innovative. The Big 3 idea of innovation is recycling muscle cars, in case anyone hasn't noticed, it's not working.



Take the union, the government and everything out of the equation and only present the product, and people will still purchase foreign cars because they are more appealing.



THE BIG 3 HAS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO CONSIDER THEY ARE THE PROBLEM !

 

[gary s]

tom,



stop with the finger pointing.



wake up, it is OUR problem. not another country's gov't

 

[Tom Schindler]

So what are you proposing to do about that Tom? Put tariffs on Chevys and Fords???

If tarriffs are placed on US goods going into Canada or Mexico, then yes.





Tom

 

[Tom Schindler]

Les,



Lets say I0 build a product. Someone tells me that I must make this item this way and pays me to design it.



Lets say you build the same item. You are not told what to build (No biggie there) and nobody pays you to build it.



Who has the business advantage?

Does our industry need to compete, yes they do, but they need to be more innovative. The Big 3 idea of innovation is recycling muscle cars, in case anyone hasn't noticed, it's not working.

Yes it is working. Ford is having no problems selling the Mustang. GM will have no trouble selling the Camaro. I know Chrysler will have no trouble selling the new Challenger.



Will it be the magic pill needed to save the company? No way.



What will save the industry is offering vehicle people want to buy. Right now, people are afraid of the economy and energy costs. This country is sinking. We can sing the praises on the good imports have done for this country. It still does not change the fact that the company I work for had its stock go from $65.00/share in jun to $8.00/share today.



The economy is sinking. If something does not happen, we will not have to worry about big government, little government, no government. We will have nothing. We will be a third world country.



Anyone that thinks sending profits to another country is good for this economy just blows my mind.





Tom

 

[Bill Barber]

How can you impose tarrifs on Ford and GM products shippid to Mex, and Canada when both of those countrys Build ford and GM parts and cars?

 

[Les]

Lets say I0 build a product. Someone tells me that I must make this item this way and pays me to design it.



Lets say you build the same item. You are not told what to build (No biggie there) and nobody pays you to build it.



Who has the business advantage?

The manufacturer with the greatest latitude has the greatest potential. If your are saying the Japanese government pays Toyota or Honda to build a specific product to sell in this country, and it sells well, then I would say they know more about the American consumer than our own manufactuers. Regardless, if the American public is purchasing a product made elsewhere and they are paying the same or even more for it, then that tells me American manufacturers don't have a clue as what we want.



It doesn't matter where the incentive to build a specific product comes from, if it appeals and is reasonable in price, people will but it.

Yes it is working. Ford is having no problems selling the Mustang. GM will have no trouble selling the Camaro. I know Chrysler will have no trouble selling the new Challenger.

So the Big 3 are selling muscle cars, and Toyota is selling Camrys, who is making the most money??? Limited production automobiles appeal to probably 1% of the buying public. Nice to have the toys, but the toys don't pay the bills.

 

[Gavin Allan]

The present economic problems are just a natural result of the free market correcting itself. Too many people have been cheating the system and/or too much governmental influence has led to imbalances on the market.



If the government could just keep its nose out of the market and keep from trying to rescue it, things will straighten up soon enough. The rising population and pent-up demand that will build for products and services during this downtime will create opportunities and improve things.



Part of the problem is the government passing laws to try to limit crime, but yet creating loopholes for lobbies and certain people to take advantage of the system. That is what has happened, and now we all have to pay for the few greedy bastards who literally stole from us.



Taxing corporations and otherwise restricting production have not helped us compete against foreign interests.



Yes, Caymen is right that if the big 3 would build quality cars people like at a comptitive price then they would be doing fine. However, our own government tried to shelter the Big 3 and restrict them at the same time, which resulted in impotent industry tied to quarterly profits and dependent on the government.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

Making a blanket statement that when the government gets involved stuff screws up is not always true.

I would agree with that. Good thing I never made such a blanket statement. I merely said that I'm not in favor of government regulations that limit consumer choices, nor am I in favor of the "larger" governement and the larger role of government that such regulations would create.



Caymen also said:

Our auto industry is fighting Japan and not just Toyota and Honda. The Japanese government tells Toyota what to build and pays them to design it. They then sell them here with little to no investment and then expect our industry to compete.

All moot, IMHO. Moot for several reasons. You state that Japanese car companies have a better profit margin because their government subsidizes their automobile production. I don't see how that influences the American consumer to buy, or not to buy an import. Again. people buy what they want when given a choice. As a consumer I don't pick a brand based on the profit that one provider or another is making. Profit is not an evil thing.



Caymen then said:

We then blame it on unions and bad managment

Yes, we can rightfully attribute lower (or a lack of) profitability in part to the high costs of required union employees and the drain of burdensome retiree pensions and benefits. Those things are costs that affect the bottom line. You used the word "blame", note that I did not.



But as for blame, we can blame poor sales on management. It is management and executives within the company that define the product that is sold, and market that product.



Regardless the cost to produce and the profit that leads to, the bottom-line is that the domestic big 3 have been losing sales to imports year, after year, after year.



That has nothing to do with the profit margins of the Japanese cars; especially not when as I said before the import cars sell for more than their domestic counterparts.



It's all about what consumers want.



Instead of limit consumer choices, or try to steer consumers away from their preferred choice with higher tariffs/tariffs, why not deliver a more appealing domestic product?



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



So what is the solution?



I submit that the BEST solution is for Detroit to simply deliver a product to the market that more people want. I am NOT convinced that they require government subsidy to do that. I think they simply need to get their crap together, and I further think that maybe, just maybe the best way to fund that and allow for that is significant downsizing, total management overhaul, and a drop of the UAW requirements.



And I agree with Gavin that it is our own govt protectionism of the past three decades that have made the big three "less" competitive then they should be in the marketplace.



TJR

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Let's look at the most successful cars. The Model T, VW Bug, VW Rabbit and Toyota Corolla. What do they all have in common? They are just basic transportation, but reliable and economical. The last time we had a gas crisis, those Rabbits were everywhere.



The US automakers need to get back to basics. They need to build something cheap and reliable. They may not make much per unit, but when you sell millions of them those little profits on each one add up.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les said:

Regardless, if the American public is purchasing a product made elsewhere and they are paying the same or even more for it, then that tells me American manufacturers don't have a clue as what we want.

Les gets it!



I made bold the word "Regardless" in the quote because the statement is a bottom-line, without regards statement.



It agrees with my point that IF the American car companies would "simply" create a more appealing product everything else would be moot!



TJR

 

[buzz worth]

If GM and Ford would pay more attention to their clientel and less to pleasing the stockholder (short term), they would have (or had) a much better LONG term ROI.



ss