Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The reaction theory assumes the auto industry has no foresight. Obviously this isn't true considering that GM had the opportunity to fill the roads with electric cars, for which there was and is substantial demand, in the 90s and they simply stopped. Don't make me cite a documentary. Ford produced a hybrid vehicle nearly 5 years ago, and it's one of their better selling vehicles. It insults the intelligence of everyone to suggest overtly that auto manufacturers don't consider the interests of other industries. Of course they do. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why so many GM vehicles can run on corn ethanol, which we all know is a horrible idea.
|
First of all GM began the Insight program because California had legislated that by 2002 2% of all vehicles sold by a manufacturer be emission free. Ultimately the technology simply was not ready to make a no compromises vehicle that could be sold at a price point consumers could afford. Even now the battery technology isn't ready yet. By the late 90's when it became evident no manufacturer, not even Toyota, could meet the mandate California rescinded it.
As far as ethanol the reason that so many GM vehicles can run on is that they get a credit on meeting CAFE standards on every vehicle that is E85 capable. The CAFE credit was something the corn industry lobbied for. Building in E85 capability costs virtually nothing, just some changes in fuel tank , fuel line and injector materials so they are not corroded by the ethanol, and software changes. GM started building in the capability in around '01 or '02 but didn't give a shit about it until a couple of years ago when Toyota starting winning the PR war with the Prius and E85 was all GM had to fight back with. It was simply done so it would be easier to meet government standards, not out of any benevolence towards the farming industry.
Certainly the Big 3 have made some mistakes in the past but they have made progress. The last UAW contract was a big improvement in improving their cost structure. I don't know what the answer is, if they declare bankruptcy the taxpayers will still be left holding the bag in the form of pensions being transferred to the PBGC. Plus the ripple effect of suppliers going under would mean that even the import brands would have a difficult, if not impossible job of building cars here.
-----Added 24/11/2008 at 02 : 09 : 23-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
First off this is the biggest load of bull, and I always feel the person saying it is insulting my intelligence if I don't stuff it into the ground. Do you not think that other auto manufacturers in the US have unions? Of course they do, and they're still profitable, even now during our recession. Toyota is unionized. Subaru is unionized. Even Honda is unionized.
I'm sure you think it's a knee-jerk reaction for a liberal to blame big oil, but to have the knee-jerk reaction of blaming unions in the same breath... doesn't that seem somewhat inconsistent?
|
The only Toyota plant that is unionized is the NUMMI plant they operate with GM in Northern California. I'm not aware of any Honda, Subaru, Nissan, or any other import manufacturer plants in the U.S. that are unionized. Part of the reason the imports built their plants in the south was to keep the unions out. I don't have the time right now to link to all the sources, but it would be false to say union representation at the import brands is a fraction of what it is at the domestics.