Is GM finished?

For the record 3bodyproblem, I'm a huge fan of american cars. I think my 2009 Z06 as well as the 2005 vette, 2000 vette, 2002 trailblazer, 2009 ford escape, 1998 Mustang Cobra and 1996 Mustang Cobra (all bought new) helped keep some people working.

However, being a supporter of their products doesn't mean that I think they should be bailed out by the government. In fact, culling the herd is what keeps it strong. GM has been poorly managed for a long time. The unions got too strong, the legacy costs are simply too high. How do you fix GM in a situation like that?

Ford seems to be doing ok for the moment anyway.
 
For the record 3bodyproblem, I'm a huge fan of american cars. I think my 2009 Z06 as well as the 2005 vette, 2000 vette, 2002 trailblazer, 2009 ford escape, 1998 Mustang Cobra and 1996 Mustang Cobra (all bought new) helped keep some people working.

However, being a supporter of their products doesn't mean that I think they should be bailed out by the government. In fact, culling the herd is what keeps it strong. GM has been poorly managed for a long time. The unions got too strong, the legacy costs are simply too high. How do you fix GM in a situation like that?

Ford seems to be doing ok for the moment anyway.

I just think it's shortsighted to give up on an established company like GM right now. Give it to Ford. Let them manage the entire show. At least they can benefit from the reasearch and developemnt.
Maybe it is time for them to fail. I just don't feel that's a viable option. I'm not sure why people think protectionism is a bad thing. China is growing because of it. When your own economy fails and you do little to protect it than hope for Capitalism to save you...It just seems wrong. Especially because of the prior government interference in the sector. Toyota is on the verge of not turning a profit in NA due to their own looming legacy costs. I'm not sure where Honda is in these regards. So we sell off the pensions of millions of retirees to only find ourselves in a worse situation in 5 years when the entire industry collapses in on itself, again?
Meh, what do I know about the future? I'm just arguing my point as I see it today.
 
I just think it's shortsighted to give up on an established company like GM right now. Give it to Ford. Let them manage the entire show. At least they can benefit from the reasearch and developemnt.
Maybe it is time for them to fail. I just don't feel that's a viable option. I'm not sure why people think protectionism is a bad thing. China is growing because of it. When your own economy fails and you do little to protect it than hope for Capitalism to save you...It just seems wrong. Especially because of the prior government interference in the sector. Toyota is on the verge of not turning a profit in NA due to their own looming legacy costs. I'm not sure where Honda is in these regards. So we sell off the pensions of millions of retirees to only find ourselves in a worse situation in 5 years when the entire industry collapses in on itself, again?
Meh, what do I know about the future? I'm just arguing my point as I see it today.
Have you ever read The Reckoning?

This should be required reading for anyone in the auto industry.
 
I'm not sure why so many Americans don't see how important this industry is.

Because it's not that important, as the numbers show.

There's not much else Americans have to export but their automotive expertise.

Really? I'll tell Larry and Sergei. Or Bill.

I don't see how they can continue to do this without a strong automotive sector. They're leading the way towards practical electric vehicles.

These would be practical vehicles like the Chevy Volt (which doesn't exist), or the Toyota Prius (which has sold over a million models)?

They need to keep on top of that because other countries will follow with their reverse engineered knock offs. Perfecting the assembly line, increasing productivity and advancing automation are all very much American.

They are indeed. And they're a classic example of a service, because you don't need to build a damn thing to do automation research.

In fact, much of the automation research for Toyota is done in a small building in Hyde Park, Chicago -- the Toyota Technical Institute. No fab lines, no huge buildings, just a lot of well-paid nerds at their white boards reinventing process engineering. Because Toyota finds that the services of American researchers are valuable enough to pay for.

The only way too keep exporting these services is to make sure the at home industry keeps leading the way. Isn't it?

No, it's isn't. If that were the case, then iPhones would be built in San Jose.

The World needs Hyundai's, but they want Chevy's. Can they continue to sell them to the World as a service bankrupt and then behind the curve? I don't know maybe I'm missing something here.

You are. Forty years of doing just that, successfully. As long as American can design better products than the competition, people will continue to buy (and pay for) American designs, which brings money into the States.
 
It raises prices, stifles innovation, and makes your products less competitive on the world market.

You realize we're talking about Japan right? I think you need to take a look at what happened after WW2.

Just a note on your other post. As of 2008 (over a decade) Toyota had yet to make a profit on the Prius. This was because, in addition to the tax incentives given to them by southern states and the lack of legacy costs, Japan heavily subsidized the production of the vehicle.

You do know what Protectionism is don't you?

"Win on Sunday, Sales on Monday"- You can't begin to sell your services without proven technology. That means you need a tangible product under constant development. Real world testing is important. You need manufacturing capability.

And the Volt does in fact exist, you're thinking of the Easter Bunny. An easy mistake to make. :D
 
It raises prices, stifles innovation, and makes your products less competitive on the world market.

Perfect example: Harley-Davidson.

The Japanese invasion had effectively crushed the British motorcycle industry and was about to do the same for H-D. Reagan stepped in and placed a hefty tarriff on Japanese bikes over 700cc, H-D's main competition. Rather than using this as a chance to innovate and try to build a product that competes with the Japanese product in terms of reliability, quality and technology, H-D played the "heritage" card. Now, twenty years later, they're basically building the same crap they were building then. As a bike mechanic during these years, I could only watch them squander this opportunity and shake my head.
 
Perfect example: Harley-Davidson.

The Japanese invasion had effectively crushed the British motorcycle industry and was about to do the same for H-D. Reagan stepped in and placed a hefty tarriff on Japanese bikes over 700cc, H-D's main competition. Rather than using this as a chance to innovate and try to build a product that competes with the Japanese product in terms of reliability, quality and technology, H-D played the "heritage" card. Now, twenty years later, they're basically building the same crap they were building then. As a bike mechanic during these years, I could only watch them squander this opportunity and shake my head.

Allow me to offer an expansion on this point.

In the past 40 years, the trucking industry lost White, Freightliner was purchased by Daimler-Benz, and Volvo entered the marketplace by buying what was left of the GMC-White marque, and building Class 8 rigs.

Rather than whining about the new challenges they faced, Paccar, the builders of Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks, upgraded everything. With the more aerodynamic rigs from Freightliner and Volvo, they came out with the T-2000 (Kenworth), an improved version of the T-600 "Anteater," the T-660, and the new 387 (Peterbilt.) Frankly, they're much better trucks than the Volvo or the Freightliner, and far more reliable. Trust me on that one, especially considering the damned Freightliner Columbia I'm stuck driving right now is falling apart, while a Pete or KW of the same year is still going strong. (I just had the steering box replaced on this POS, and it's already failing after two months.)

Consider, also, that Paccar has to compete with Western Star and International, plus Mack, which is reentering the competition with several new designs. Sterling has been building daycabs, but it's looking like they'll be moving into OTR/Linehaul equipment fairly soon, as will several Japanese manufacturers looking to get a toehold in the profitable American market. I'm an unabashed fan of Paccar's products, simply because I've driven them, and I've driven the competition. I know what works, and I prefer Kenworths. By allowing competitors into the American market, we've got better trucks. Frankly, I'd like to see just what kind of wonders they have in Australia, where you have Road Trains with anywhere from two to four 48'-53' trailers rolling across the outback, because in a location like that, you'd damned well better have a solid piece of equipment doing the work.

And you won't get that if you stifle the competition because it's inconvenient.
 
And you completely miss the point. GDP has little to do with this, which is easy to see as there is an entire rainbow of colors in the poor zones.

Its about import and export. 'Products' make good export goods. Services don't, as they are locally based. So while the GDP of a country can be high, it will still slowly lose money/credit.
Even a small country that can fill most of its product needs and export their own products will make sure that money will keep on coming into their country.

You have it wrong.

Banking, for example, is a service - and it is one of the exports of the UK and helps underpin the economy. (all those "evil" private banks...) the services far outweigh the export of "real" goods.

your economic paradigm appears to be based in the industrial age of economics. Back when the strength of a country was how many steam engines it had and how much coal and steel it could export.

Not the case any more.
 
Last edited:
Perfect example: Harley-Davidson.

The Japanese invasion had effectively crushed the British motorcycle industry and was about to do the same for H-D. Reagan stepped in and placed a hefty tarriff on Japanese bikes over 700cc, H-D's main competition. Rather than using this as a chance to innovate and try to build a product that competes with the Japanese product in terms of reliability, quality and technology, H-D played the "heritage" card. Now, twenty years later, they're basically building the same crap they were building then. As a bike mechanic during these years, I could only watch them squander this opportunity and shake my head.

What? The American MotorCycle industry has been 'crushed" long before Reagan became President. Hunter S Thompson's great quote about how H-D suddenly found itself left with a buying public of "Hells Angels and motorcycle cops" was from 1968.

you also ignored the simple fact that Harley has made a LOT of money for the shareholders by building the "crap" that you don't appear to like but that millions of people factually do.

So your suggestion is that it would have been "smarter" for H-D to produce crotch rockets and nimble (but efficient) little 500cc motorcycles and go broke? How is that 'efficient".

I drive a Kawasaki Vulcan because I like cruisers and dont have much money. Its a good bike and if I ever get to upgrade I will buy the latest 2300cc Triumph (another motorcycle destroyed by the Japanese imports...)

people buy motorcycles for a lot more reasons than efficiency. Good companies realize that.
 
Last edited:
You have it wrong.

Banking, for example, is a service - and it is one of the exports of the UK and helps underpin the economy. (all those "evil" private banks...) the services far outweigh the export of "real" goods.

your economic paradign appears to be based in the industrial age of economics. Back when the strength of a counry was how many steam engines it had and how much coal and steel it could export.

Not the case any more.
Why didn't you choose Iceland as an example?
 
What? The American MotorCycle industry has been 'crushed" long before Reagan became President. Hunter S Thompson's great quote about how H-D suddenly found itself left with a buying public of "Hells Angels and motorcycle cops" was from 1968.

you also ignored the simple fact that Harley has made a LOT of money for the shareholders by building the "crap" that you don't appear to like but that millions of people factually do.

So your suggestion is that it would have been "smarter" for H-D to produce crotch rockets and nimble (but efficient) little 500cc motorcycles and go broke? How is that 'efficient".

I drive a Kawasaki Vulcan because I like cruisers and dont have much money. Its a good bike and if I ever get to upgrade I will buy the latest 2300cc Triumph (another motorcycle destroyed by the Japanese imports...)

people buy motorcycles for a lot more reasons than efficiency. Good companies realize that.

All true. But, H-D didn't even try to keep pace. They could have kept building cruisers (as a long-time motorcyclist, I loathe that term, but it fits) while at the same time updating their design. Continuing to use air-cooled pushrod engines has hampered them as much as it has helped them (please don't mention the V-ROD, as it doesn't bear mentioning). Now that people don't have as much money to spend on bikes, H-D has nothing to fall back on except t-shirts and shot glasses. Buell was stillborn, the Italian deal was pure idiocy and H-D is paying the price. Working for H-D for as long as I did, I saw them go from a mediocre motorcycle company to a mediocre motorcycle company with a huge line of non-motorcycle products. While this kept them profitable during the good years, it's going to sink them in the lean times. Making money for the shareholders is good, but it has resulted in overproduction and a lot of new bikes moldering in warehouses and on showroom floors.

Your Vulcan is a good bike, by the way. I started out working on Kawasakis and I still prefer them to any other brand (I'm on my second KLR650).
 

Back
Top Bottom