Submitted by Coldice4678 on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 11:39am.
I wrote something but after I embedded the video it deleted, but pretty much I agreed with Michael Moore when he says US Automakers been making crappy cars for decades and they haven't been stepping their game up. Plus that if taxpayers are helping all these huge companies for billion dollar bailouts we should own a piece of it.
Submitted by Random Guest (not verified) on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 11:40am.
What a disgusting idiot. I cannot believe Moore still gets coverage in the media after he visited Cuba to highlight their medical system as a model for the US. So he comes to fame attacking the US auto industry then as they are failing as a result of actually having good medical coverage (2,000 dollars per car more than average asian car manufactured in the US) to gloat in their failure. Which is ironic because he both attacks companies and govt for not providing health care but then also attacks the companies that do in favor of companies which do not.
Submitted by eduardo09 on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 12:34pm.
woa. Moore is probably as left wing as it gets but most of what he said is valid. GM is one of the leading companies as far as the 'green' movement in Europe goes, so much as to having one of the largest span of solar panels on one roof in the world, yet the majority of their cars released in the US are trucks and SUVs. Maybe that was the 'American' demand but they should have realized that this 'green' movement would catch up to them and plan accordingly. I don't see how their strategy or product line up was not the reason they failed.
What you should be disgusted at is the fact that these CEOs are using the workers and the fact that all these jobs will be lost to get the bail out. Do you honestly think these CEOs care about all those workers??! come on! They don't give a shit, they aren't struggling or are in need for money. Each of them arrived in their ow private jet to ask for the bail out. The CEOs will get theirs, no matter what, and the ones who will end up paying for their terrible strategies will be the workers.
Maybe Moore does have a point. If the government bails them out - I don't think there is any other option if we want to save those jobs - maybe the government should enforce some sort of regulation to work on green and more efficient public transportation and vehicles. Maybe that will help create some sort of infrastructure in this country. Our railway system is pathetic and it is one of the main reasons the US is so dependent on oil. We should be trying to apply a similar infrastructure in this country as it is in the EU.
I don't think its time to be closed minded, even if it coming out of Michael Moore.
I am again(how unusual) forced to disagree with with you. While the status of the big 3 is largely their own fault their average fuel economy is a very marginal factor in their current status. The overwhelming factor in their demise is legacy costs. The big 3 provided some of the best health and retirement packages in american history in fact it was something which they prided themselves on.
Unfortunately for them as things became increasingly mechanized and internationally competitive they found themselves competing against companies which did not share teh same financial burdens.
Most "asian" cars in the US are manufactured in the US in southern states. These companies (bmw and mercedes do the same as well) received huge financial incentives to locate in these states and they also have lower taxes then where the big 3 are located. In addition their plants are not unionized and don't provide pensions instead offer vastly cheaper 401k options. The big thing though is that they don't have a huge retired work force costing billions and billions of dollars in health care costs. These costs or legacy costs puts GM back about 2,000 dollars more per car compared to the average of the asian competitors. So lets do a little math here: 2007 average US volume about 16,000,000 GM's Market share is around 24% at an average of 2000 dollars per car. So that means its costing GM about 8,000,000,000 a year. Now lets imagine they put that money into research instead. . .GM would probably be dominating the scene.
It seems to me, with that in mind, a wonder that GM has managed to compete for as long as it has.
Submitted by eduardo09 on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 1:48pm.
but you refuse to talk about the product. They have been reluctant to move on from the Trucks and huge SUVs that, although have been in great demand in US, are not seen the same way, even with gas prices decreasing. Up to now the best sellers in the industries have been trucks like the Ford F150 and GMC's SIERRA.
They should have look at this 'green' future and evolve their "merchandise." All I'm saying is that they should be pushed to produce more gas-efficient machines, which ultimately will only help them as it will create a new demand. You can't change -the way foreign companies run their system in this globalized economy and - although I'm not advocating the poor conditions which they treat their workers - maybe US companies should get more creative as to how they produce their cars.
i think you both have interesting points...however, i also think that it is reasonable that the government asked US automakers for a plan on how they propose to modify their structure and produce an economic plan before they are given the bail-out. i think that is where what ed is saying (about evolution of the product) comes into play, because by evolving their merchandise they will become better players in the new market demand which, with the exception of crazy tahoe fans (ahem...) would probably suit most demographics (in which asian and european car manufacturers currently have a stronger footing, though a lot of them are not doing too well either mind you (but then again who is?))...
...as per what andrew said about legacy, i believe it was henry ford back in the day when they started producing the 't' models that said that he wanted to ensure that every person who worked in the assembly line at ford should be able to afford to buy a 't' model. this sense is still a noble one carried out by american car manufacturers. however, to blame this responsibility toward their employees for their financial fracas sounds like a bit of a downer, and i will refuse to accept (albeit probably idealistically) that companies who are responsible to their workforce will suffer the same fate...surely ingenuity and an understanding of market demographics (not just present but projected) as well as an evolution of their product to meet those future demands in the past (if that makes any sense...) could have allowed human dignity and financial stability to coexist? i don't think that the fact that foreign automakers make a more interesting product that is more contextual for our current state can be placed entirely on 'they don't treat their workers good...' i mean, you could argue that the amount they save on investing on their workforce goes straight into r & d and that this is why they have a better product, but i just don't buy it...
he says to let Detroit go bankrupt, its the only way to restructure the entire company and get all the old management out, and new management in. With everything GM has going against them right now, a huge bailout check would only be wasted and delaying the inevitable because without restructuring the company it will eventually go bankrupt anyways. They do really need new incentives and goals like preparing the future for green design. Although the executives are rich as hell, they do care about the workforce. They have to because nobody rich, poor, good, or evil wants to see that large of a workforce lose their jobs. They are trying to plug a huge hole with bubble gum and its going to explode in their faces.
Submitted by eduardo09 on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 7:12pm.
my point was that GM never cared to evolve its company within the US. GM is a huge producer of 'green' cars with great efficiency as well as a promoter of alternative energy in the EU. It just seems that they were so invested in milking the 'American' image of big trucks and SUVs that they never put any effort to become efficient like other companies such as Honda and even Ford, sort of.
We can't let a trend of bailouts to get started, because nothing good will come out of it. It'll increase the governments debt for a company that will probably fail in the future anyway unless they undergo major merchandise change.
Im glad jim posted that link because Romney better states my sentiments. It is true that GM and other car companies need to adapt more quickly to the market but what Moore was supporting was for the gov't to bail out the companies take a stake in them and then have the ability for central planning to play a bigger roll in their future.
Bailing the companies out now is just putting a bandaid on a fatal wound. They are bleeding to death as a result of their legacy costs. If they can however file chapter 11 renegotiate all of their contracts and restructure to more efficient companies the problem could be solved instead of postponed.
The central planning argument is very short sighted and highly reminiscent of many failed car companies from the former soviet block. In recent times the gov'ts huge involvement has been mandating ethanol use which to put it mildly has been a catastrophic failure of government involvement in the private sector.
GM already has been developing more efficient cars but it takes a cycle for them to get to the market. Think of say the Chevy Volt? Or that the yes Chevy Tahoe Hybrid gets the same gas mileage as the Camry. Even their new standard cars will already be considerably more efficient their upcoming compact the Cruze is rated at 47 mpg which is prius turf without even being a hybrid. While GM does need to adapt more quickly if it were really just a question of "greeness" then wouldnt these cars be selling well.
Ed, love the arch posts, keep them coming. America is a different cookie from other parts of the world- look at our frontier's men past- we are about expanse and bigger is better. It is more difficult to convince the average american to catch on to the green movement than the average asian or europeon who faces different conditions. The american will probably say that he would not be caught dead driving that spaceship weinermobile. We are an automotive society( albeit this is a drawback to our convenience)- but this can also be blamed on automotive design in the US to fully convince the average american to be green. No bailout, free market, don't be nice to your workers and give them crazy pensions, hire slaves (if you 'hire' them), get monkeys (screw PETA).
Submitted by JTB (not verified) on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 12:46pm.
I completely agree with JB. I think that monkeys could solve all of the problems facing these 3 US automakers today. This all goes back to the very core principle that our current society has been founded upon, "monkey see, monkey do." I feel that monkeys, as they are trying so very hard to evolve into humans, would in fact rise to the challenge of working in the factory environment. I seriously doubt that monkeys would mind factory conditions seeing how they would be provided coverage from rain, heat, predators and other forms of opposition to their every-day survival, not to mention they would maintain plenty of high places to swing from. We all know that monkeys LOVE pushing buttons, and we all know that is the ONLY thing that automaker employees still do in the factories, thanks in part to recent technological booms in the field of artificial intelligence. Instead of supplying 2,000 dollars per car, the automakers could simply dish out bananas to these monkeys. This creates not just a win-win situation for the monkeys and the automakers, but a win-win-win-win situation with the monkeys, the automakers, the American economy and world-wide banana exporters due to the large increase of bananas purchased from countries like Ecuador, Costa Rica, Philippines and Colombia. In 2004, Ecuador alone provided more than 30% of global banana exports. (I got your back like a hunch Ed) With the entire 7,300,000,000 yearly dollars that automakers would be saving (assuming they purchase at least Seven Hundred Million dollars worth of bananas from Ecuador for these thousands of monkey employees and retired human employees) we could easily be rolling out in flying El Caminos powered exclusively by leftover banana peels no later than mid August of 2009. This my friends, is the crowning of a Utopean society.
I wrote something but after
I wrote something but after I embedded the video it deleted, but pretty much I agreed with Michael Moore when he says US Automakers been making crappy cars for decades and they haven't been stepping their game up. Plus that if taxpayers are helping all these huge companies for billion dollar bailouts we should own a piece of it.
What a disgusting idiot. I
What a disgusting idiot. I cannot believe Moore still gets coverage in the media after he visited Cuba to highlight their medical system as a model for the US. So he comes to fame attacking the US auto industry then as they are failing as a result of actually having good medical coverage (2,000 dollars per car more than average asian car manufactured in the US) to gloat in their failure. Which is ironic because he both attacks companies and govt for not providing health care but then also attacks the companies that do in favor of companies which do not.
woa. Moore is probably as
woa. Moore is probably as left wing as it gets but most of what he said is valid. GM is one of the leading companies as far as the 'green' movement in Europe goes, so much as to having one of the largest span of solar panels on one roof in the world, yet the majority of their cars released in the US are trucks and SUVs. Maybe that was the 'American' demand but they should have realized that this 'green' movement would catch up to them and plan accordingly. I don't see how their strategy or product line up was not the reason they failed.
What you should be disgusted at is the fact that these CEOs are using the workers and the fact that all these jobs will be lost to get the bail out. Do you honestly think these CEOs care about all those workers??! come on! They don't give a shit, they aren't struggling or are in need for money. Each of them arrived in their ow private jet to ask for the bail out. The CEOs will get theirs, no matter what, and the ones who will end up paying for their terrible strategies will be the workers.
Maybe Moore does have a point. If the government bails them out - I don't think there is any other option if we want to save those jobs - maybe the government should enforce some sort of regulation to work on green and more efficient public transportation and vehicles. Maybe that will help create some sort of infrastructure in this country. Our railway system is pathetic and it is one of the main reasons the US is so dependent on oil. We should be trying to apply a similar infrastructure in this country as it is in the EU.
I don't think its time to be closed minded, even if it coming out of Michael Moore.
I am again(how unusual)
I am again(how unusual) forced to disagree with with you. While the status of the big 3 is largely their own fault their average fuel economy is a very marginal factor in their current status. The overwhelming factor in their demise is legacy costs. The big 3 provided some of the best health and retirement packages in american history in fact it was something which they prided themselves on.
Unfortunately for them as things became increasingly mechanized and internationally competitive they found themselves competing against companies which did not share teh same financial burdens.
Most "asian" cars in the US are manufactured in the US in southern states. These companies (bmw and mercedes do the same as well) received huge financial incentives to locate in these states and they also have lower taxes then where the big 3 are located. In addition their plants are not unionized and don't provide pensions instead offer vastly cheaper 401k options. The big thing though is that they don't have a huge retired work force costing billions and billions of dollars in health care costs. These costs or legacy costs puts GM back about 2,000 dollars more per car compared to the average of the asian competitors. So lets do a little math here: 2007 average US volume about 16,000,000 GM's Market share is around 24% at an average of 2000 dollars per car. So that means its costing GM about 8,000,000,000 a year. Now lets imagine they put that money into research instead. . .GM would probably be dominating the scene.
It seems to me, with that in mind, a wonder that GM has managed to compete for as long as it has.
but you refuse to talk about
but you refuse to talk about the product. They have been reluctant to move on from the Trucks and huge SUVs that, although have been in great demand in US, are not seen the same way, even with gas prices decreasing. Up to now the best sellers in the industries have been trucks like the Ford F150 and GMC's SIERRA.
They should have look at this 'green' future and evolve their "merchandise." All I'm saying is that they should be pushed to produce more gas-efficient machines, which ultimately will only help them as it will create a new demand. You can't change -the way foreign companies run their system in this globalized economy and - although I'm not advocating the poor conditions which they treat their workers - maybe US companies should get more creative as to how they produce their cars.
i think you both have
i think you both have interesting points...however, i also think that it is reasonable that the government asked US automakers for a plan on how they propose to modify their structure and produce an economic plan before they are given the bail-out. i think that is where what ed is saying (about evolution of the product) comes into play, because by evolving their merchandise they will become better players in the new market demand which, with the exception of crazy tahoe fans (ahem...) would probably suit most demographics (in which asian and european car manufacturers currently have a stronger footing, though a lot of them are not doing too well either mind you (but then again who is?))...
...as per what andrew said about legacy, i believe it was henry ford back in the day when they started producing the 't' models that said that he wanted to ensure that every person who worked in the assembly line at ford should be able to afford to buy a 't' model. this sense is still a noble one carried out by american car manufacturers. however, to blame this responsibility toward their employees for their financial fracas sounds like a bit of a downer, and i will refuse to accept (albeit probably idealistically) that companies who are responsible to their workforce will suffer the same fate...surely ingenuity and an understanding of market demographics (not just present but projected) as well as an evolution of their product to meet those future demands in the past (if that makes any sense...) could have allowed human dignity and financial stability to coexist? i don't think that the fact that foreign automakers make a more interesting product that is more contextual for our current state can be placed entirely on 'they don't treat their workers good...' i mean, you could argue that the amount they save on investing on their workforce goes straight into r & d and that this is why they have a better product, but i just don't buy it...
Mitt Romney wrote a good
Mitt Romney wrote a good opinion article on this in the New York Times the other day-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?ex=1384837200&en=3616fe7f95dd6a7b&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
he says to let Detroit go bankrupt, its the only way to restructure the entire company and get all the old management out, and new management in. With everything GM has going against them right now, a huge bailout check would only be wasted and delaying the inevitable because without restructuring the company it will eventually go bankrupt anyways. They do really need new incentives and goals like preparing the future for green design. Although the executives are rich as hell, they do care about the workforce. They have to because nobody rich, poor, good, or evil wants to see that large of a workforce lose their jobs. They are trying to plug a huge hole with bubble gum and its going to explode in their faces.
my point was that GM never
my point was that GM never cared to evolve its company within the US. GM is a huge producer of 'green' cars with great efficiency as well as a promoter of alternative energy in the EU. It just seems that they were so invested in milking the 'American' image of big trucks and SUVs that they never put any effort to become efficient like other companies such as Honda and even Ford, sort of.
We can't let a trend of bailouts to get started, because nothing good will come out of it. It'll increase the governments debt for a company that will probably fail in the future anyway unless they undergo major merchandise change.
the architecture blogs are
the architecture blogs are getting no love :(
Im glad jim posted that link
Im glad jim posted that link because Romney better states my sentiments. It is true that GM and other car companies need to adapt more quickly to the market but what Moore was supporting was for the gov't to bail out the companies take a stake in them and then have the ability for central planning to play a bigger roll in their future.
Bailing the companies out now is just putting a bandaid on a fatal wound. They are bleeding to death as a result of their legacy costs. If they can however file chapter 11 renegotiate all of their contracts and restructure to more efficient companies the problem could be solved instead of postponed.
The central planning argument is very short sighted and highly reminiscent of many failed car companies from the former soviet block. In recent times the gov'ts huge involvement has been mandating ethanol use which to put it mildly has been a catastrophic failure of government involvement in the private sector.
GM already has been developing more efficient cars but it takes a cycle for them to get to the market. Think of say the Chevy Volt? Or that the yes Chevy Tahoe Hybrid gets the same gas mileage as the Camry. Even their new standard cars will already be considerably more efficient their upcoming compact the Cruze is rated at 47 mpg which is prius turf without even being a hybrid. While GM does need to adapt more quickly if it were really just a question of "greeness" then wouldnt these cars be selling well.
aveo 34mpg
cobalt 37mpg
malibu 33mpg
hhr 32mpg (hideous)
Ed, love the arch posts,
Ed, love the arch posts, keep them coming. America is a different cookie from other parts of the world- look at our frontier's men past- we are about expanse and bigger is better. It is more difficult to convince the average american to catch on to the green movement than the average asian or europeon who faces different conditions. The american will probably say that he would not be caught dead driving that spaceship weinermobile. We are an automotive society( albeit this is a drawback to our convenience)- but this can also be blamed on automotive design in the US to fully convince the average american to be green. No bailout, free market, don't be nice to your workers and give them crazy pensions, hire slaves (if you 'hire' them), get monkeys (screw PETA).
I completely agree with JB.
I completely agree with JB. I think that monkeys could solve all of the problems facing these 3 US automakers today. This all goes back to the very core principle that our current society has been founded upon, "monkey see, monkey do." I feel that monkeys, as they are trying so very hard to evolve into humans, would in fact rise to the challenge of working in the factory environment. I seriously doubt that monkeys would mind factory conditions seeing how they would be provided coverage from rain, heat, predators and other forms of opposition to their every-day survival, not to mention they would maintain plenty of high places to swing from. We all know that monkeys LOVE pushing buttons, and we all know that is the ONLY thing that automaker employees still do in the factories, thanks in part to recent technological booms in the field of artificial intelligence. Instead of supplying 2,000 dollars per car, the automakers could simply dish out bananas to these monkeys. This creates not just a win-win situation for the monkeys and the automakers, but a win-win-win-win situation with the monkeys, the automakers, the American economy and world-wide banana exporters due to the large increase of bananas purchased from countries like Ecuador, Costa Rica, Philippines and Colombia. In 2004, Ecuador alone provided more than 30% of global banana exports. (I got your back like a hunch Ed) With the entire 7,300,000,000 yearly dollars that automakers would be saving (assuming they purchase at least Seven Hundred Million dollars worth of bananas from Ecuador for these thousands of monkey employees and retired human employees) we could easily be rolling out in flying El Caminos powered exclusively by leftover banana peels no later than mid August of 2009. This my friends, is the crowning of a Utopean society.
Post new comment