Nationalizing the Domestic auto makers?

On 2008-11-11, Sir Ray > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 10:00*pm, "Dave" > wrote:
>> GM needs to kill all of their SUVs. *ALL of them. *The largest vehicle GM
>> should produce is a 7-passenger minivan. *If GM builds anything on a truck
>> platform, it should carry a MAXIMUM of three people.
>> If GM continues to build lots of SUVs, then GM deserves to go bankrupt. *The
>> only way GM can survive is to kill their entire SUV division. *Period.
>
> Why do you believe this? GM SUVs are still quite popular sellers, as
> SUVs sales go nowadays (of course, not quite the heady late '90s by
> any stretch) . Are you saying that Ford should become the designated
> truck & SUV company, and GM the small car division?

Interesting that you should bring up GM making small cars.

It is probably impossible to make a 100% competitive small cars with the
present UAW contracts. Something has to give. Price, features, build
quality, materials, or durability or some combination of those to make
up for the labor costs. Buyers don't see labor costs when they are
comparing car A to car B. They see those things that have to be
compromised. Those companies not in a UAW stranglehold put the money
into the things buyers see and have an advantage.

"Sir Ray" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 10, 10:00 pm, "Dave" > wrote:
>> GM needs to kill all of their SUVs. ALL of them. The largest vehicle GM
>> should produce is a 7-passenger minivan. If GM builds anything on a truck
>> platform, it should carry a MAXIMUM of three people.
>> If GM continues to build lots of SUVs, then GM deserves to go bankrupt.
The
>> only way GM can survive is to kill their entire SUV division. Period.

>Why do you believe this? GM SUVs are still quite popular sellers, as
>SUVs sales go nowadays (of course, not quite the heady late '90s by
>any stretch) . Are you saying that Ford should become the designated
>truck & SUV company, and GM the small car division?

I have a friend who is a GM salesman. After the price of gasoline went up
so high recently, his sales plummeted. Yes, GM SUVs are still selling, but
only after they've been discounted 15K or so. Note that this is STILL true,
with gasoline close to $2/gallon. What you don't understand is, the only
way to keep GM SUVs moving is to take a tremendous loss on each sale. If GM
is in financial trouble, (and I doubt that, but...) NOW you know WHY. You
can't lose an average of 10K or so on each vehicle and remain in the black
for very long.

GM needs to stop selling SUVs, period. Not just now, but forever. GM can't
fall back on F150 sales to keep them solvent. The GM pickups are not as
popular as the Ford F150. It almost makes sense for Ford to continue making
some kind of SUV based on the F150 platform, as the F150 is selling like
hotcakes anyway.

And no, I'm not saying that GM should be the small car division. GM could
use some of their larger engines to build a nice mid-sized muscle car based
on the Impala platform. That would sell incredibly well. And even though
most would call that a full size vehicle, I'd call it a mid-sized, as it's
smaller than the "mid-sized" vehicles I grew up with. But it's hardly
small. -Dave

On 2008-11-11, Dave > wrote:

> And no, I'm not saying that GM should be the small car division. GM could
> use some of their larger engines to build a nice mid-sized muscle car based
> on the Impala platform.

The current impala is a FWD box of blah. There's no using that.

On 2008-11-11, Dave > wrote:

> If GM
> is in financial trouble, (and I doubt that, but...)

WEll it seems the market continues to believe they are in serious
trouble.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226...ml?mod=testMod

On Nov 11, 10:36*am, "Dave" > wrote:
> "Sir Ray" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Nov 10, 10:00 pm, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >> GM needs to kill all of their SUVs. ALL of them. The largest vehicle GM
> >> should produce is a 7-passenger minivan. If GM builds anything on a truck
> >> platform, it should carry a MAXIMUM of three people.
> >> If GM continues to build lots of SUVs, then GM deserves to go bankrupt..
> The
> >> only way GM can survive is to kill their entire SUV division. Period.
> >Why do you believe this? GM SUVs are still quite popular sellers, as
> >SUVs sales go nowadays (of course, not quite the heady late '90s by
> >any stretch) . *Are you saying that Ford should become the designated
> >truck & SUV company, and GM the small car division?
>
> I have a friend who is a GM salesman. *After the price of gasoline went up
> so high recently, his sales plummeted. *Yes, GM SUVs are still selling, but
> only after they've been discounted 15K or so. *Note that this is STILL true,
> with gasoline close to $2/gallon. *What you don't understand is, the only
> way to keep GM SUVs moving is to take a tremendous loss on each sale. *If GM
> is in financial trouble, (and I doubt that, but...) NOW you know WHY. *You
> can't lose an average of 10K or so on each vehicle and remain in the black
> for very long.
>
> GM needs to stop selling SUVs, period. *Not just now, but forever. *GM can't
> fall back on F150 sales to keep them solvent. *The GM pickups are not as
> popular as the Ford F150. *It almost makes sense for Ford to continue making
> some kind of SUV based on the F150 platform, as the F150 is selling like
> hotcakes anyway.
>
> And no, I'm not saying that GM should be the small car division. *GM could
> use some of their larger engines to build a nice mid-sized muscle car based
> on the Impala platform. *That would sell incredibly well. *And even though
> most would call that a full size vehicle, I'd call it a mid-sized, as it's
> smaller than the "mid-sized" vehicles I grew up with. *But it's hardly
> small. *-Dave

As most of he parts are paid for and in house, GM may as well keep
making those crap-mobiles. Most of the remaining costs are the
assembly pay, some overhead and electricity.

In article >,
necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:

>Are they buying Toyota, Daimler-Benz and Honda too?

Once they've nationalized the big 3, banning imports would be the next
logical step.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:56:25 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>>Are they buying Toyota, Daimler-Benz and Honda too?
>
>Once they've nationalized the big 3, banning imports would be the next
>logical step.

Would they be willing to accept the big job losses that would go along
with kicking the, "import," makes out of the country - from the
longshoremen who unload the ships at the ports to the workers in their
assembly lines right here in the USA?
--
"I... Can't drive... FIFTY-FIVE!!"
--Sammy Hagar

On 2008-11-11, necromancer > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:56:25 -0600,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>>
>>>Are they buying Toyota, Daimler-Benz and Honda too?
>>
>>Once they've nationalized the big 3, banning imports would be the next
>>logical step.
>
> Would they be willing to accept the big job losses that would go along
> with kicking the, "import," makes out of the country - from the
> longshoremen who unload the ships at the ports to the workers in their
> assembly lines right here in the USA?

They'll nationalize those factories and the longshoreman... well
government already intends to screw them over by building up that port
in mexico and building that highway up through TX to at least KC.

On 2008-11-12, Ashton Crusher > wrote:

> My feelings are based on the premise that a domestic auto
> manufacturing industry is critical to the well being of our nation. As
> some may recall, when we geared up for the last big war, WWII, it was
> largely the auto industry that was here to hit the ground running.

Funny how the government worked so very hard to kill it then.

On Nov 11, 5:40 pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-11-12, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>
> > My feelings are based on the premise that a domestic auto
> > manufacturing industry is critical to the well being of our nation. As
> > some may recall, when we geared up for the last big war, WWII, it was
> > largely the auto industry that was here to hit the ground running.
>
> Funny how the government worked so very hard to kill it then.

Brent, Detroit's problem is not government regulation, but inability
to make fun to drive cars. I have a 5-speed Mazda 3, I only paid 17K
for it, and it is a blast to drive. Great handling, nice interior. A
Subaru or a Golf would also be inexpensive, great handling economy
cars. Which Detroit-made car can offer low price and great handling?