Originally Posted by
Puto
It's not really about that. It's about all the jobs that will be lost. It can easily effect a lot more than just the automakers.
I disagree with the fact that they did not learn from the 70's. There is a lot more variety today then there was in the 70's. Cobalt, Neon, Aveo, Focus, Vibe, Ion, G5, Caliber, and a few hybrids. Of course japanese economy cars get more MPG, but we can't say GM, Ford, and Chrysler didn't learn anything.
Originally Posted by
Epstein
It's about forsight and planning. CEO pay is just something easy to key in on because it's a number. If Wagonner payed GM his salary instead of the other way around, it wouldn't have made a dent in the Billions of dollars they're losing. Per quarter! You mean to tell me that the people planning roadmaps and business development had no fallback plan?? Toyota has been gaining on GM for years.
Chrysler was bailed out once already by the government, decades ago. It worked and brought us cheap K-car and minivans. Uncle Sam actually made 25% profit off the deal in stocks. Go read about it. But look where Chrysler wound up again. Back in the toilet. "Hey, Toyota is selling the snot out of Hybrid Prius's... lets bring back the Hemi!" How many times do you check someone into rehab before you just give up?
this was my point, it wasn't that the Americans didn't built a more diverse line up, its that they keep marketing the big gas guslers SUVs were the best selling vehicles in the 90s but they didn't adapt in the 2000s when the gas prices started creeping up... we got more "hemi" and more "silverado" commercials, while toyota and honda were devoloping hybrid technology, and chevy was giving up on the electric vehicle in the late 90s (Google it).
By the way if GM gos under dosen't that mean some other auto maker will fill the void which means if Toyota and Honda are selling more they would need to built more plants to keep up with demand...
basic economics people ...