Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options

General Motors discussions

1550551553555556558

Comments

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Ford's not "ok", not really. They LOOK "okay" because they wrote off huge debt. But they will fall right over with one more severe economic shock IMO. They're just squeakin' by.

    MINI-- a retro success story but really, a small player. BMW is certainly not counting on MINI to revive the company with a "new exciting image". BMW already has all the image it needs.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    ".....Doing dumb things like targeting Honda in their ads, when Honda buyers buy Hondas, not cars. Just like the old GM. "

    Well, Honda buyers didn't always buy Hondas. They switched for a reason. So, why not try to appeal to them. My cousin's husband is a Honda (Acura) buyer, and was amazed by my new Lacrosse.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    As Toyota and Honda have become bigger they've opened themselves to more scrutiny at the same time their large growth has made it more difficult to cover up problems with secret warranties. I think it is also getting more difficult to charge significantly higher prices for their vehicles as competition has revved up. Welcome to Detroit's world Japan!
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    ".....That gets to me...OnStar is just a carphone. They try to trumpet it as a tech marvel for getting directions and help....and it's just a carphone from the 70s. While everyone is carrying cellphones in their pockets. Sad."

    So, how many of these cellphones will call you to see if you're ok when you get in an accident??? Will they tell the authorities where you are if you can't speak??? How about shut your car down if it is stolen, as well as locate it for authorities??? If you have a nav system, can you ask your cellphone where a certain place is, and will your cell phone look up the address and download it to your nav system???

    I didn't think so.....70's technology, indeed.
  • scootertrashscootertrash Member Posts: 698
    After reading and hearing about the GM/eBay venture in every media possible a few weeks ago, I checked in on it fully expecting to see it live it up to the rosy predictions.

    Today, I found the feedback for yourgmdealer which is the user ID for GM's eBay project.

    We are several weeks into this now, so I was a bit surprised to see their feedback rating as a 1.

    Of the positive feedback, 3 are from the same zero feedback buyer who left praise for the ease of their transaction within 3 minutes of the listing ending.

    There are 11,410 vehicles listed, I wonder if a 54% positive feedback with a score of 1 with a seven-hundredth of a percent of a sell through rate is considered success?
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Well, Honda buyers didn't always buy Hondas. They switched for a reason. So, why not try to appeal to them.

    Because GM doesn't have their reputation rebuilt yet, and they honestly don't have something new to offer, like Honda did when they came to the US market.

    GM might be able to pick off a potential Honda buyer here and there, but they're not going to crack the brand loyalty of most of them. And those who buy Nissan and Hyundai for example know they're not advertising better than the Elantra, Sentra, Sonata, Altima etc because they can't, so they aren't going to get them.

    I think it's the wrong strategy.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    So, how many of these cellphones will call you to see if you're ok when you get in an accident??? Will they tell the authorities where you are if you can't speak??? How about shut your car down if it is stolen, as well as locate it for authorities??? If you have a nav system, can you ask your cellphone where a certain place is, and will your cell phone look up the address and download it to your nav system???

    OnStar can't always shut your car down if it's stolen...not sure that's even legal for safety reasons (could cause some very serious accidents which they would then be liable for damages-wise). The rest, yeah, a lot of cells can do that: most have at least AGPS these days, as well as voice-prompted nav services. All cells can call 911 and can be located by the 911 call center in an emergency, which they usually do when they get a call from a cell user who can't speak. All people with a quarter of a brain set some sort of quick-dial for 911 for that very purpose.

    Nothing new. GM stuck a cellphone in the dash with a couple of speed-dial buttons, then trumpeted it as a new innovation. Then they'll move the call center to India, because OnStar was cheap to put in to cars but an expensive recurring expense to actually RUN from day to day.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    Be sure your cell phone gets a strong enough signal out for some areas.
    Be sure it stays in your pocket and you can reach it if you're trapped or have restricted movement after an accident.
    Also be sure it will call 911 if you're unable to do so because you're unconscious.
    It will help if you set it to tell what kind of impact occurred during the accident so that responders know more about what they'll find.
    Also be sure to have your cell auto-dial and turn itself on so you can talk to emergency services if you are able to talk. That will help too.


    There's an OnStar discussion for people to complain about OnStar.

    Just used the OnStar for our new car that our son's driving. He was at marching band practice and needed the equipment he had put in the trunk during the break for dinner. He didn't have the keys. OnStar unlocked it. The keys were in the backseat of our car after we dropped off food for his dinner and talked a short time. He didn't realize he had left them until almost 40 minutes later. We had driven on to a cruise-in at a town in the next county. Thanks to my wife who reminded me OnStar could do it as we started back to give him his keys.

    I tried to use my cellphone to unlock the other car, but it didn't seem to work. :P Maybe an I-phone can do it; is there an application?

    There was a region along an interstate in Kentucky that our Tennessee friends said were dead areas for their cellphones. We would typically call from one of those dead strips telling them we were on our way.

    OnStar isn't the salvation for GM that will convince the haters, but it has its value.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Be sure your cell phone gets a strong enough signal out for some areas.
    Be sure it stays in your pocket and you can reach it if you're trapped or have restricted movement after an accident.
    Also be sure it will call 911 if you're unable to do so because you're unconscious.
    It will help if you set it to tell what kind of impact occurred during the accident so that responders know more about what they'll find.
    Also be sure to have your cell auto-dial and turn itself on so you can talk to emergency services if you are able to talk. That will help too.


    I think there's an app for that. :shades: If not, there will be: the iPhone has an accelerometer and could do it when you get right down to it. Someone will probably call it iStar. :shades:

    Oh and if you don't have strong enough cell signal, OnStar ain't gonna work either, since it operates over cell networks (not sure which ones). Wonder what GM's coverage map looks like anyway?

    Honestly, someone being able to remotely unlock my car would make me nervous, you know? Anyone look into how thieves might be able to hack the system to send an unlock command to the vehicle?

    Oh, and didn't a bunch of cars recently no longer have OnStar because the analog cell networks were shut down? That couldn't have gone over well with the customers.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Yeah, and with Hyundai nipping at their heels at that! Hyundai has become the comeback kid of the last decade.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    I have OnStar on both my Cadillac DTS and my girlfriend's Buick LaCrosse. My DTS also has nav. Also, if you're in a wreck, are you sure you can find your cell phone? It could've flew into the back seat or package shelf in the impact and you may not be able to locate it. In such situations, seconds count.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    I dunno. My co-worker who is a big Honda fan has been eyeing up the new LaCrosse.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    My co-worker who is a big Honda fan has been eyeing up the new LaCrosse.

    If Honda doesn't soon find its way, stylistically, I can certainly see more defections from the Honda camp to GM. The latest Accord, TL and TSX are not all that good looking, IMO.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    I have to agree that the Honda has some styling issues. The TL is different, TSX is better(I like it a lot), the Accord is bland(Coupe Accord is great! Sedan should have used the same concept!) Brands are going bold and modern, the Accord took again, "safe" approach. Which might sting them a bit. The new Pilot looks like an escape(the older version look more modern and almost luxurious in a way, the new model look like utility worker car.

    About every other brand is going bold. Some might sacrifice some things to get a different look. Acura on the other hand took it perhaps a bit too far? Nah, but the weird wing logo grill is a bit much?

    Though GM might have a newer cool looking face, (maybe) but is its soul any different? With low funds? Wouldn't they opt for the same parts used, but just new sheet metal. I am not convinced yet. It will take years to recover from just pure extravagance. Living beyond their means. Setting us all up for disaster, wait they already have. The cadillac is where the brand GM should be. Why would anyone pay a huge premium on a Caddy, when that should be expected any way on any car offered. Who says that is all that good anyway? I should be able to sit in a base model, and feel good, feel the quality. You often cannot say that with GM. You feel base, stripped! After all, a car should be about the feel and drive, not its sugar coated features to make up for lack there of.

    I know that if I did not have all the really cool features on my 08 GM car, it wouldn't be close to worth it. The drive train is nothing to shout about, its blah, and I have driven the base model as a rental It felt so cheap!.... I couldn't wait to get my car back!

    Seems to me, GM has re-invented themselves so many times! When are they going to do it for real.

    Ever notice the Saturn commercial states" we have been doing right by people since day 1" Uh? So now were going to lie to us now? Are we all that stupid or dumb that they would actually insult us? lol!!! Seriously, you wouldn't be in the trouble your in, if you did the right thing!! At least be honest!! I think then we could swallow it down better. Man up GM!!

    Anyway. I'd be willing to get another GM, but not for many more years in my lifetime.
  • colloquorcolloquor Member Posts: 482
    OnStar's service in the USA is provided by Verizon Wireless.

    Here's more info from WikiPedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Hmm, Verizon is evil and should be avoided, heh.

    Unfortunately, they're also the only provider in my area that offers the NFL Network. :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    subscribe to AT&T for a month, then come back and you'll have a Verizon shrine in your house, with fresh flowers every day. :P

    Looks like GM can't make up its mind about Opel in Europe. Hold 'em or Fold 'em?
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    The way OnStar responds to a stolen car report is to reduce the power of the engine, so it won't go fast (if it is found moving). When the car is shut off, it then won't be able to start.

    I agree that GM's marketing of OnStar has been poor. Turn by Turn Nav was introduced when others were introducing sat-nav. However, now with the nav in my LaCrosse, I can call OnStar, give them a landmark (restaurant, hotel, museum etc.), they will look it up, and download the directions to the nav system, all HANDS FREE.

    I believe that GM should offer more than just one year free on their cars in lieu of some rebates. Think about it; if they put $2000 on the hood of a car that has nav, they could offer 5 yrs of the Directions and Connections (@ $400/yr) in lieu of the rebate, and if someone bites at that, they save $400, because they already offer it free for a year.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    I've had AT&T for 2 years now, just renewed. AT&T is heaven compared to Verizon....I figure it's red for a reason. :shades:

    If GM could make good decisions, would they be where they are today? They'll screw up Opel too.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    GM wouldn't be where it is today had it not been for the perfect storm rising up against them last year. If gas prices had stayed low, we'd all still be buying Tahoes and Silverados. Most of us loved their big, safe, comfortable behemoths.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Ahh...another "It's not GM's fault" right? Those same people likely decided to buy Muranos, Pilots, Landcruisers, and F150s.

    If gas prices had stayed low, GM would still have been losing money.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Hey, AT&T is great as long as you don't need to reach customer service, or god help you, have a problem with your iPhone. But if nothing goes wrong, it's as good as most carriers. Similar to GM. When it's good, it's very good, but when it's bad, it's really bad and there's no saving you. GM and AT&T seem to share the business philosophy of promising so much and delivering less.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Verizon just stuck their foot into the global warming mess and it's getting messy. link.

    OnStar could be an attractive package, but safety doesn't sell.

    And the way it's going, horsepower isn't selling as much anymore, and it's about dead in some places, like Japan.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Think there's some shill posting going on eh?

    I didn't pay a lot of attention to the details, but it was slated to be a short intro program, and now its been extended.

    GM, eBay Extend Promotion; Edmunds.com Advises Consumers Make an Offer (AutoObserver)
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    If I recall, GM hasn't made a profit since 2004 which is LONG before the oil price hikes. Hell, even before 9/11 GM wasn't doing so hot and they screwed themselves royally with large incentives to "Keep America Rolling". I remember the following springtime you could get a Tahoe or Pukon with 15 grand off the sticker. Similar deals have shown up every springtime since then too.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Correct. And yet people continue to believe that it's the fault of oil prices, the economy, or 9/11 that GM has been in trouble. Instead of GM being the problem, and those things just shedding light on the issue.
  • nortsr1nortsr1 Member Posts: 1,060
    I will give you credit, bpizzuti...you have a rebuttal for everyone. Maybe we should put you in charge of GM since you seem to have an answer for EVERYTHING.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    >

    Sort of drags a discussion down, doesn't it.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    Ahh...another "It's not GM's fault" right? Those same people likely decided to buy Muranos, Pilots, Landcruisers, and F150s.

    Wrong. Maybe you didn't check the sales figures on those Landcruisers, Pilots, and F-150s before you made your comment. The F-150 and Silverado were two of the best-selling vehicles in this country for at least a decade before the high oil prices hit. People didn't stop buying them because they suddenly weren't any good. Sales dropped because the economy fell apart and gas rose to $4 a gallon.

    Yeah, he's got an answer to everything--too bad they're not accurate.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Chill friends, we welcome all points of view in here.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    $4 gas only sealed GM's fate faster. What you are refusing to understand is GM had been losing money since the 4th quarter of 2004. Sales for 2004 year were close to 17M units. How could you sell so many vehicles and still lose money while your main competitor, Toyota, was raking in the cash. GM's business model was unsustainable. They were fixated on market share instead of profits per vehicle. The only vehicles that made them money were the pickups and big SUVS. Their cars were sold at a loss to keep up with CAFE standards.

    Blame the legacy costs, blame the huge UAW contracts, blame poor decisions by management, blame the rebate addiction they created. But you can't blame $4 gas for their down fall. If this was the case, Ford would have filed bankruptcy as well.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    GMs been losing market share consisently for....what....30 years?

    As some industry wag stated last year...GM could not PAY their workers at all and still lose money on their debts and on their business model and products.
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    GMs been losing market share consisently for....what....30 years?

    Please name one American auto maker that has not been losing market share consistently for the past 30 years. Just for fun, let's try this: for each American auto maker you can name that gained market share in ANY segment during that time period, I'll name an American car company that went out of business (including bankrutpcy or sale to a foreign company). For instance, Ford gained market share in pickup trucks, so I'll respond with American Motors. Please don't ask me for a second example because I don't think any exist.

    My point is that GM isn't the only domestic company that's been losing market share or has had a bad business model since the Japanese invasion. The only mass production car companies that have consistently gained market share over the last 30 years are Japanese or Korean. Even the Germans have lost ground.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    So what does that prove?

    a) GM is copying the marketing skills of other losers?

    b) Having the D3 all losing money is really comforting?
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    So what does that prove?

    a) GM is copying the marketing skills of other losers?

    b) Having the D3 all losing money is really comforting?


    How about

    c) The UAW-contracted manufacturers have all been losing market share. They have all been closing plants. The non-UAW contracted manufacturers have been building plants. Most of those are gaining market share.

    Perhaps the high labor costs hurt competitiveness.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yeah but you know that BMW does not pay slave wages.

    They pay high wages and build cars people want to buy, and sell them for a tidy profit!

    And Toyota autoworkers are among the highest paid in the world. AND in 2007 Toyota paid an AVERAGE bonus to employees of $22,000 each.

    Scapegoating the UAW is a convenient argument and I agree a tempting one, but really doesn't hold up very well to a focused scrutiny IMO.

    The UAW didn't design the cars GM built after all.

    Besides, it's rather elementary good business sense, isn't it, to ask the Accounting Department to check on whether the firm is spending more than it's making? GM execs didn't have to get a Stanford MBA to know that. You'd think if that was the sole problem GM could have solved it decades ago.

    "Hey, guys, we're going broke. You'll have to make concessions"

    Which is *exactly* what happened recently.....(and all too late it seems).

    Did someone at GM expect the UAW to voluntarily give back some of their salaries these past 30 years?
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Well, the UAW IS an element of things, it's hard to deny it given their inflexible (and just plain stupid) work rules. They're not innocent.

    On the other hand, no one made GM climb into bed with the UAW and agree to the work rules in the first place. So the UAW doesn't have the largest share of guilt either.

    And I'd love to see a few guys from the UAW give back a certain percentage of their pay...provided that applies to ALL GM employees, including some of the moronic car deisgners who designed the cars that won't sell (Hey, Aztek designers, you listening???). And also the accountants who told everyone that everything will be fine. And the CFOs who believed them. And the CEO who believed the designers and the CFO...and how about the guy who actually agreed to the stupid terms the UAW proposed instead of negotiating harder and actually doing HIS job?

    Come to think of it, this may be the only way we get our bailout money back.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    > 2007 Toyota paid an AVERAGE bonus to employees of $22,000 each.

    I note that's 2007, not 2009. Grin.

    Was that an average worldwide?

    At the Georgetown plant? Did it include the increasing percentage of temporaries they were using (wisely in terms of economics since their permanent workers or potential workers had no union to represent them)?

    At all US plants?

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    You totally missed the point of my original post: GM wouldn't be where it is today had it not been for the perfect storm rising up against them last year. If gas prices had stayed low, we'd all still be buying Tahoes and Silverados. Most of us loved their big, safe, comfortable behemoths.

    I wasn't trying to say that GM management made stellar decisions. My only point was that GM wouldn't have been in this position TODAY had it not been for the plummeting economy and skyrocketing gas prices. At some point, it all would have come to a head and GM would have failed. The Big Three were all on the cusp of failure, this just pushed them over the edge sooner.

    What chance did they have? The unconsionable UAW contracts alone would have destroyed most businesses. If I were the chairman of GM, I would have gone into bankruptcy and shed the labor contracts AND pension liabilities years ago. The airlines started doing it in the 90s and none of them would be operating today if they hadn't.

    IF GM had produced the greatest products in the world and had employed the greatest marketing campaign in history, they still would have collapsed under the weight of the UAW contracts with their huge pension liabilities and medical costs...
  • colloquorcolloquor Member Posts: 482
    GM's position was untenable with its UAW legacy costs. And, for those who love the large SUVs, gas will never revert to prices of several years ago. It's only going to go up. It's a diminishing resource, and it won't be long until the USA will see gas prices similar to Europe. It's only a matter of time.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I don't think I *missed* the point, just didn't give it the weight you did. In other words, my counter-argument (for the fun of it) would be that if it were a perfect storm, why didn't ALL the boats sink?

    If the counter-counter argument was, "well, some companies had a more saleable product line, more fuel efficient models, less debt, etc", then that still places the blame squarely on GM management's shoulders.

    This "perfect storm" was a LONG time gathering. Is it that Toyota's weather radar was working and GM's was out for repair? :P
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    if it were a perfect storm, why didn't ALL the boats sink?

    It's true that some of the boats were less sea-worthy than others. GM was overladen with the excess baggage of the UAW contracts. Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Hyundai were riding much higher in the water when the storm hit. They might have had better captains and navigators, but the "Big Three" were handicapped anyway. Given its higher production costs, GM was forced to rely on its high-profit cash cows--SUVs and pickup trucks. GM made nothing on its small cars while the Japanese and Koreans made reasonable profits on their Accords, Civics, Corollas, Camrys, and Sonatas.

    The playing field was not level. Why do you think the foreign competition is so happy to move production to the US? BMW, MB, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Nissan and Honda love building new factories here. They get cheaper labor, lower transportation costs, and huge incentive packages from the states and localities. They generally pay almost nothing for the land, pay no real estate taxes, and enjoy income tax abatements for decades AND they're unencumbered by the UAW. Why? Because our states are so desperate for the jobs, they give it all away.
  • nortsr1nortsr1 Member Posts: 1,060
    Good reply, vinnyny: I agree with you 100%.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    American manufacturers get (and have gotten in the past) almost the same incentives from states out of desperation for jobs, and sometimes get more protection from state senators (remember the "discussions" about Spring Hill by the senator from TN?). Of course, GM is building fewer factories, particularly in the US, so those advantages don't help as much as with a manufacturer that is expanding its operations rather than reducing them.

    The one that's different is the UAW encumbrance and being stuck with their rotten work rules. That's a big one, but that's also to some degree GM's fault by agreeing to a contract that forced them to marry the UAW and their rotten work rules. They shot themselves in the foot on that one...or perhaps higher up and closer to centerline.

    Not that the UAW is innocent either. But no one made GM agree to the terms they proposed.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    If your argument is that in the southern states, where the bulk of the foreign factories are, that legislators from those states are favoring foreign over American companies----i find that argument directly contrary to the historical actions of legislation in those states.

    The "unfair" playing field is a result of the foreign companies setting up far more efficient production lines, and, oddly enough...making their workers a lot happier. Not only has GM managed to be burdened by UAW demands in the past, they've also managed to have a discontented AND expensive workforce.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Interesting site. I love the following Obama clip.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    On the other hand, no one made GM climb into bed with the UAW and agree to the work rules in the first place.

    There's an argument that the Wagner Act pretty much did that. Of course, the UAW had to go and actually strike to get their recognition, but the sympathy of the law was on their side after the mid-1930s. Taft-Hartley and subsequent UAW blundering arrogance set the stage for the nonunion transplants in the 1980s, but the domestics and the UAW were locked into a deathgrip by then.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Taft Hartley was in 1947 though. You'd think the D3 could have straightened it out between 1947 and when they took on the enormous pension debt in the 1950s. US government probably made the entire debacle worse with ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) in 1974, and Bush made it even worse again with the Pension Protection Act of 2006. These pension plans operated at fractional values for decades (pension liabilities vs. market value), some companies at 13 to 1 !!!

    So tell me books weren't cooked and accounting "imaginative".
  • vinnynyvinnyny Member Posts: 764
    If your argument is that in the southern states, where the bulk of the foreign factories are, that legislators from those states are favoring foreign over American companies----i find that argument directly contrary to the historical actions of legislation in those states.


    My argument has nothing to do with favoring foreign companies over their American counterparts. I'm sure that southern states would love to have new Ford and Chevy plants--provided they came without the UAW baggage. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's takeover made it certain that GM will never be able to break the UAW chains.

    I never mentioned a specific region, but the location of the new foreign plants is a direct result of the South's aggressive pursuit of these new job opportunities. I too see the irony in the South's opposition to NAFTA and foreign competition versus their marriage to Kia, Hyundai, BMW, and MB. Perhaps they realized that jobs from foreign employers are better than no jobs at all.

    By the way, when I talk about the UAW, I'm not trying to bash American workers. It's the corrupt UAW management and their shameful work rules and inflated contracts I oppose. Our legislators have done NOTHING to help American workers and their employers. NAFTA did nothing but send American jobs to Mexico and Canada. The latest example is "Cash For Clunkers" which did NOTHING to help US manufacturers as foreign companies captured most of the sales.
This discussion has been closed.