It still amazes me how many people don't know about Toyota getting bail out money from the Japanese government, yet this is ok?? Toyota has done a bang up job in hiding this money. I can say I link at least 3 people a day who don't believe or had no idea about this bail out for Toyota. With the cat out of the bag that Toyota and Honda are not invincible, do not have the reliability, quality card stuffed away and out of reach for other manufacturers, the tide is changing. You will always have those who just plain dislike GM, Toyota, BMW, or whomever I guess. For me, its all about buying as close to home as possible. Keeping Americans working, keeping our economy stable and viable. Buying U.S. made goods and services just makes sense if you can think past the now.
Oh, Japan has shoved money into its heavy industries in a constant bailout that's lasted nearly 15 years at this point. It just never makes the news in Japan, let alone here. But to say that they "protect their businesses" is grossly simplifying it to say the least.
Also, while GM and Ford have more recalls, you have to look at what the recalls were for and also how much of it is simply being hidden by foreign companies to bolster their image at home. The nuclear mess in Japan is a good example. The electric company in charge of the whole mess is still acting as if nothing is wrong and it's all under control in the local news and media in Japan. Image/"face" is everything and truth is often buried a dozen pages deep in some report when it comes to corporate disclosures.
Now, true, U.S. companies aren't much better. But they've learned to at least fess up and fix stuff sooner rather than later. Some of that, though, is probably the population's take on it, though. We're much more independent and distrustful of authority than Japan's people are, so "trust us" simply won't work and they've finally figured it out that getting rid of guilt and problems early on works better. Because we pick and pry and gripe when "trust us" is what we hear.
In Japan (most of the rest of the world, in fact), the opposite is generally true - people want everything swept under the rug and out of view to a certain extent. Just as long as everyone is more or less happy and things run smoothly.
Toyota, Honda, Sony, and so on are all having image problems as of late in the U.S, because what works in Japan doesn't work any more over here. ie - we are beginning to figure out that most of the reason that they have "less" problems is maybe because they simply aren't telling us about them in the first place.
Funny thing about bailout hatred. To most self-titled American "capitalists", "free market" supporters etc who oppose anything with even a hint of what they see as "socialism", aiding a corporation is OK - as long as they aren't paying for it. It's kind of funny, but not in a laughing way.
Toyota, Honda, Sony, and so on are all having image problems as of late in the U.S, because what works in Japan doesn't work any more over here. ie - we are beginning to figure out that most of the reason that they have "less" problems is maybe because they simply aren't telling us about them in the first place.
I think your a bit out of tune with reality. The reason Toyota, Honda, and Sony have less problems isn't because no one is telling us about them. It is simply because they don't exist, and in fact, there are less problems.
No one needed to tell my parents and brother that the two Camry's, 4 Runner, T100, Tundra, Corolla, and Lexus ES300 are all extremely reliable and just about 100% trouble free. The experience of owning told them there was no problems. The fact they could always go from point A to point B told them that. The fact everytime you took it to a mechanic for maintenance they couldn't find anything to rack up charges for to repair something. The 3 Civics my wife has owned have all been stellar. Honda need not tell me they are reliable, they simply were. Heck, even my American built Accord was reliable, as the auto tranny issue got resolved before leaving me stranded even once, and the car was tight and well built with quality parts for the most part.
As to Sony, I remember a 1987 Sony Trinitron 20" TV that simply wouldn't die for at least 20 years, and the 1994 27" Trinitron Tube TV still works better than most tube TV's that still exist (not many left). Granted, Sony has gone downhill a bit since their heyday in the 80's and 90's, but they don't need to tell me about any problems, because I didn't have any.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
1) US bailouts were done WITH my tax money. 2) US car companies have millions more customers that were burned with lemons and vowed to never buy another american vehicle for life (like me). 3) The embargo and protest by consumers against US automakers was so widespread, that it was evident people were protesting with their wallets and the embargo was not being lifted for the Big 3. 4) The gov't had no right to lift the embargo and give the Big 3 our money anyway despite no product in exhange for that money. 5) The Big 3 took the money they didn't deserve and had no right to take, rather than actually earn the money by making worthy product and paying for the sins of their past. 6) The only thing attempted to be swept under the rug is how awful the BIG 3 treated their customers and basically caused financial damage that has never been repaid to former customers.
I don't think Honda and Toyota have millions in the (they will never get my money again camp). GM and Chrysler do; hence the hatred of the bailouts.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Oh, Japan has shoved money into its heavy industries in a constant bailout that's lasted nearly 15 years at this point. It just never makes the news in Japan, let alone here. But to say that they "protect their businesses" is grossly simplifying it to say the least.
What Japan, Germany, Korea, or any other nation does concerning their industry or society, is beyond our control. Because some nation subsidizes their industry or uses child labor, or has no pollution controls, - to get a competitive advantage - is not a good reason for the U.S. to do similar. If we don't like the way a certain country or industry within that country does business, then the U.S. can ban the import of said products.
With our trade deficit it would obviously hurt other countries more to lose their market here, then for us to lose a smaller amount of exports.
So let's elect politicians who will ban Japanese and Korean cars, and other such products, and we'll startup the factories to make the replacements. We'd probably have an economic boom, instead of McD jobs ! Just make the playing field easier for more companies to startup auto production; i.e. -more choices than the Big 3.
My reference for the 3 spd may be distorted. It was a 4 spd that lost 4th gear so the gear ratios are not optimized as a 3 spd. I lost 33% off my mileage since it happened. I've never owned one of those sensitive cars that downshift for slight terrain changes since my 110 HP V6 '79 Monte Carlo running on cruise control.
This is the Riviera, right? Yeah, in a situation like that, your car losing 4th gear would be something like my old NYer, Catalina, or whatever losing 3rd, and having to drive around in second all the time. In my case, that's like going from a ~2.50:1 final ratio to a ~3.70, and in those old cars, that could be pretty guzzly!
Interestingly, when the Neon went from a 3-speed automatic in 2001 to a 4-speed automatic in 2002, the EPA rating stayed the same...24/31. There must have been some slight difference though, because with the newer, dumbed down numbers, the 3-speed is rated 21/28, and 21/29 for the 4-speed. Rounding error, I guess.
With the current Chevy Malibu, the 6-speed automatic is rated 22/33, while the older 4-speed was 22/30. In raw, laboratory numbers (the ones that don't get published, but can be downloaded from the EPA's website), the 4-speed was 27.4/42.6 and the 6-speed was 27.8/46.8
I can't help thinking that most of the opposition to the bailout of the GM and Chrysler is held mostly by people who had a bad experience with a 1990s era Oldsmobile or Chrysler and turned to a more reliable Toyota or Honda. Detroit quality is much better today. The gap between Ford and GM products with Toyota and Honda is very small, and the gap itself depends on how one measures quality in the first place. But many can't get past their dated experiences with Detroit product. Just because there isn't a Detroit vehicle in their driveway, or a Detroit plant in their state doesn't mean that a strong GM, Ford and Chrysler isn't good for the national economy. They are.
There is a 2003 Detroit vehicle in my driveway and a "strong GM and C" is good for the economy. But failure is failure and a lot of people remember...particularly when their D3 products keep failing and the Government didn't bail out everyone...only the "too big to fails".
What Japan, Germany, Korea, or any other nation does concerning their industry or society, is beyond our control. Because some nation subsidizes their industry or uses child labor, or has no pollution controls, - to get a competitive advantage - is not a good reason for the U.S. to do similar. If we don't like the way a certain country or industry within that country does business, then the U.S. can ban the import of said products.
With our trade deficit it would obviously hurt other countries more to lose their market here, then for us to lose a smaller amount of exports.
But that's why we have a trade deficit. The money that Japan would have had to spend on its infrastructure and military after WWII (which we took care of largely, instead) went into their economy. When a company was in trouble, a bail-out or assistance was pretty much a given.
As a result, Japan lost very little of its heavy industry during its "lost decade". That competitive advantage that they maintain really does force us to do the same or else they will simply strip us of our manufacturing capacity and we'll cease to be a player in that industry. A good example of this is England. They simply have no real domestically owned automobile industry any more. They failed to protect it (note- government control of it isn't proper "protection", we both agree on that I suspect ) and it's gone, never to really return.
Our problem is that we don't do enough in the way of protecting our industries from outside vulture economics and competition. We've lost entire industries in the last 30 years that nobody really did much to stop. First textiles and clothing, then computers and electronics, then furniture and interior supplies, then electrical and pluming parts, and on and on.
As someone pointed out, we've gone from a nation of producers to a nation of consumers. And that's what will kill us in the end. Because without those middle-class jobs that we should have protected, we can't maintain our lifestyle or economic power. The economic engine has simply stopped moving at that point, and we've become yet another nation of welfare bums on the world market who are asking for goodwill and a handout from other nations.
Or to be more specific, the problem is that people listen too much to talk radio and the like and believe the Kool-Aid that the corporations and special interests try to sell us. True conservative thinking about economic policies doesn't see "socialism" as a factor at all in this. It's simply what you do to protect your infrastructure and resource base for future generations.
>how many people don't know about Toyota getting bail out money from the Japanese government, yet this is ok??
No. Say it's not true! The wunderkar company with perfect cars for so many years misled people?
>I link at least 3 people a day who don't believe or had no idea about this bail out for Toyota.
>Toyota has done a bang up job in hiding this money.
toyota would never, never hide anything!
> Toyota and Honda are not invincible, do not have the reliability, quality card stuffed away
You mean the toy sludge and honda transmissions and the popping welds in the hondas and the VCM problems and the runaway vehicles weren't just made up by the people with conspiracy theories? :P
Many years back I was at a meeting where a Japanese exchange student and students from other countries were present. During the social hour I asked the Japanese student how they felt about Japan's dumping products into the US economy below cost of production in Japan. This is how they took over the markets for many US products, you'll recall.
His rational was that because Japan does not have raw materials of its own, Japan and its industries had to do that to produce to keep the economy progressing. In other words, whatever is okay.
Well, GM didn't have to hide anything, now did they?
THE FAIRY TALE
By December 2008, years of decline had finally caught up with Chrysler and General Motors. Unlike Ford, which had moved aggressively to fix its longstanding problems — chiefly by shedding unprofitable subsidiaries and renegotiating labor agreements — GM and Chrysler were still plagued by incompetence and inefficiency.
Both automakers were burdened with labor contracts that undermined their flexibility and saddled them with massive retiree pension and health-benefit costs. For years, both companies had also been losing market share: Once-proud GM had lost $40 billion in 2007, and in 2008 alone saw its sales decline by 45%. Chrysler, meanwhile, was languishing under the inept management of Cerberus Capital, which had bought the company in the spring of 2007 from the German automaker Daimler. (Daimler had merged with Chrysler in 1998 only to see its new American acquisition become an unsustainable liability.) By 2008, Chrysler's market share had been declining precipitously for a decade, falling by more than 30% in that year alone.
MANAGED DECLINE
The Obama administration's economic policy, therefore, returns us to the thinking of the 1950s and '60s — to an economy in which big business, big labor, and big government are tied together in a relationship of mutual succor and support.
The auto bailouts exemplify this new reality. Sold as a means of revitalizing the economy, they are in fact a means of transforming the relationship between the state and the market in a way that empowers large players at the cost of economic growth. The overall effect of such state capitalism is a kind of controlled stasis, in which the preservation of old jobs takes priority over the creation of new ones. Managed decline, rather than dynamic growth, is the defining feature of the Obama economy.
It is not hard to understand why those who embrace this vision of politics and economics would see the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors as a great success story. But their notion of success is a far cry from old-fashioned prosperity. The Obama administration's idea of what is good for General Motors, much like its idea of what is good for America, is unlikely to be particularly good for either.
Don't you just love the idea that failure is good for America? Because that is the lesson of the Auto Industry Bailouts, not to mention the entire financial industry.
Shh, that's a very common good line of thought, and our self-titled capitalists/free marketeers hate that kind of thing. Might get you labelled a commie, or a pinko socialist at the very least. We should be expected to commit suicide so the top few can consolidate wealth in short term gains. It's just a matter of time before a miracle new industry rescues us, right? :shades: :sick:
Everyone thumps on their chest about "my taxpayer money", but I wish someone could let me know how much it cost a taxpayer making, say, $100K a year.
Despite all the political rambling about bailing out GM, the actual cost is in reality a pimple on the US budget. I understand differences in personal opinion regarding whether a bailout should have been done in principle. But trying to argue the matter over costs is distorted (same as thinking you can resolve the deficit mess by simply only cutting discretionary areas of the budget). Trying to argue pro and con based only on projected economic impact is probably next to impossible because such a calculation would almost inherently be influenced by assumptions of the individual evaluator.
As to your specific question, a significant portion of what's outstanding will be recouped as the government sells off its stock. You could estimate this by taking the amount of the "net" (what didn't get paid back in full) GM bailout after stock liquidation, then subtract out the interest GM paid to the gov on the loan portion net of the say the 10 year treasury rate representing the average gov cost of money. Next, divide the result by the total fiscal year federal budget amount. Then take that percentage (likely a very tiny fraction of one percentage point) times your net federal income tax on that $100K. I don't know your net tax bracket and I'm not interested enough to research the precise figures, but if Uncle sold all their GM stock today, I'd guess maybe a couple of pennies out of your $100K salary tops. By deferring the sale of stock as announced today, they might actually make a small profit and your share of the loss would then become -0-. Media and political extremist talk has some people all worked up and thinking a much more exaggerated figure. But when do media and political types really do arithmetic? Believe it or not, GM is starting to become a value stock darling on Wall Street given its streamlined costs after BK and low around 6 P/E ratio. The gov shouldn't rush out and sell just yet.
It's nice to know GM is a big part of the budget deficit
I think you may need to stop listening to just Fox News for a few minutes, look up some actual numbers and then get a calculator. See my response to Uplanderguy for a more business school look at the numbers.
By the way, I think you're a big Kia and Hyundai cheerleader - they can't do wrong. Well, I just recently got stuck with one of those cramped Kia Sedona's - what a pile! Be honest, those Korean companies have their mix of good and crap just like everyone else.
You forget opportunity costs. If the gov't would have put the hundreds of bailout billions into the stock market in say a total market mutual fund type investment, we'd of made a lot more money on our tax money then what GM has done!
There were much better investments to be made than GM.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
During the social hour I asked the Japanese student how they felt about Japan's dumping products into the US economy below cost of production in Japan. This is how they took over the markets for many US products, you'll recall.
I disagree. The Japanese built better cars. The US customers wanted them. The protectionists at the auto makers got Reagan to institute "voluntary" import quotas. So the Japanese started building plants here so they wouldn't be imported. And they also went into more expensive, larger segments vs. the original economy car segment - all because they were forced into quotas. You are looking at revisionist history. Clearly the US consumers wanted those Japanese vehicles, even when the prices became HIGHER than the US makes.
The protectionists at the auto makers got Reagan to institute "voluntary" import quotas. So the Japanese started building plants here so they wouldn't be imported.
And that's GREAT. No, I'm dead serious. If we make it too expensive to produce vehicles abroad and force them to build industry locally, we've won - our manufacturing and job base expands and they pour money into our economy. NUUMI, for instance, contributed roughly 1 Billion dollars a year in upkeep and salaries to the California economy while it was operating.
That's part of what real protection of our industries is. Not this focus on short-term gains that leaves us deeper in debt because there's nothing to replace the vacuum created by lost jobs. Tariffs work perfectly if they are also coupled with tax incentives and breaks to local industry to stay at home or for others to build here.
But what we have gotten is NAFTA and other idiocy that drops all levels of protection and actually gives incentives to companies to move out of the U.S. The exact opposite, in fact. Sure, they've now got people actually believing that this raping of our industries is somehow "good capitalism", but who's going to be able to afford to buy anything when we're producing nothing ourselves in a decade or two? Fancy economic theories and high stock earnings won't keep the power on or a family fed when a McJob is all that's left for your kids after college. Our generation is more or less fine - it's what my son has to deal with in a decade that truly frightens me.
Yes, I think your "business school" response to failure is exactly why we are proud to bailout GM and the financial companies. :lemon:
Let's keep teaching that in school. Failure is the best ticket to.....success!
Of course Kia and Hyundai made junk just like GM...just not for so many more years. Toyota is failing now but not in epic proportions like GM at every level of business.
I'll let the business school guys respond to your post.
To help other companies avoid GM's fate, it's worth exploring the five reasons that GM failed:
1. Bad financial policies. You might be surprised to learn that GM has been bankrupt since 2006 and has avoided a filing for years thanks to the graces of the banks and bondholders. But for years it has used cars as razors to sell consumers a monthly package of razor blades -- in the form of highly profitable car loans.
And the two Harvard MBAs who drove GM to bankruptcy -- Rick Wagoner and Fritz Henderson -- both rose up from GM's finance division, rather than its vehicle design operation. (Read more about GM's bad financial policies here.)
2. Uncompetitive vehicles. Compared to its toughest competitors -- like Toyota Motor Co. (TM) -- GM's cars were poorly designed and built, took too long to manufacture at costs that were too high, and as a result, fewer people bought them, leaving GM with excess production capacity.
3. Ignoring competition. GM has been ignoring competition -- with a brief interruption (Saturn in the 1980s) -- for about 50 years. At its peak, in 1954, GM controlled 54 percent of the North American vehicle market. Last year, that figure had tumbled to 19 percent. Toyota and its peers took over that market share.
4. Failure to innovate. Since GM was focused on profiting from finance, it did not really care that much about building better vehicles. GM's management failed to adapt GM to changes in customer needs, upstart competitors, and new technologies
5. Managing in the bubble. GM managers got promoted by toeing the CEO's line and ignoring external changes. What looked stupid from the perspective of customer and competitors was smart for those bucking for promotions.
GM's failure after 101 years is an indictment of American management in general. It highlights the damage to our economy that results when finance becomes the tail that wags the economic dog. And it shows what happens to any company that rests on its laurels and fails to adapt to change.
Be honest...you REALLY don't want to defend the history of GM and calculate the cost with a pencil and calculator. You really believe it was wrong....right?
You actually perceive there are major issues remaining at GM after the bailout that are brewing just under the corporate communications umbrella, right? :confuse:
does force us to do the same or else they will simply strip us of our manufacturing capacity and we'll cease to be a player in that industry
Again that is because we are too soft, allowing these countries to set the rules to get a competitive advantage and then not do anything about it - stopping them from selling here. Say if Japan subsidizes Toyota, or India allows child labor to make sneakers, what does our government do - it gives a stern warning and then continues to allow the import of the products, and U.S. citizens buy them based on cost. And as you said U.S. industry has suffered.
In order to solve that problem the U.S. government needs to have some kahunas and not just criticize. They need to say - Japan/Toyota subsidize all you want. But remember those 2 million Toyotas and all the parts you sell here each year. No more. 0, Nada. YOU DON'T DO BUSINESS HERE." The U.S. is still the 800 pound gorilla in the economic room, and we can set the rules if we want.
If the U.S. stopped allowing cheap, foreign-supported goods into this country, then those goods would have to be produced here, which again would be a boom for U.S. jobs and industry.
The current policy has shown its effects hasn't it? So why would anyone argue that we should continue it? Maybe you want to suggest that now that GM "is doing so well" that they need to add a few new divisions? or bring back Saturn, Pontiac, and Olds?
But compared to other waste (foreign aid to false nations, insane military action, endless breaks and perks for the top few), does it even exist? If I want to worry about opportunity costs, I'll look to the much greater opportunities we waste every day. Although wasteful in its own way, the automaker shenanigans are a drop in the bucket.
Not to mention that if one hates bailouts and governmental intervention into an automaker, there's no way they should be driving anything from Korea...
I'll drive a Kia before a GM today. No doubt about it. Could care less about other countries bailouts....a Kia or Hyundai never broke down on me or provided rotten service or cost more than the competition. Just make better products!:shades:
I could say the same thing about all the Buicks and Cadillacs we've owned. All of them were 100% reliable and had never left me stranded or needing to take the bus to work.
I don't know much about Sony, though my friend had a circa 1983 Sony console that lasted up until last year when it gave up the ghost. I still have my Zenith console television from about the same time and it still delivers an awesome picture.
Because some nation subsidizes their industry or uses child labor, or has no pollution controls, - to get a competitive advantage - is not a good reason for the U.S. to do similar. If we don't like the way a certain country or industry within that country does business, then the U.S. can ban the import of said products.
Then we should absolutely do NO BUSINESS with China for all the things you wrote and more.
Believe me, if I had the money, I'd have purchased GM for myself. So what if I ended up managing a bowling alley in Flint, Michigan in my 70s because I lost my entire fortune. It's only money
If not for the U.S., Japan would now be known as the Nippon Soviet Socialist Republic and there would be a giant statue of Josef Stalin in the Ginza.
What the U.S. now needs is a Marshall Plan for it's own industrial infrastructure which now very much resembles those bombed-out areas in postwar Germany and Japan in just about every city across the land.
We did? I'd have sooner stuck red hot flaming barbecue skewers in my eye than drive one of those diminutive ugly weird tinny Japanese rust boxes with their biodegradable interiors.
Love your use of adjectives Lemko!. Of course my friend owned a rusty rattling Vega that only by the grace of God did the rear window remain in its frame and the engine make it to 50K before it wheezed some coolant and self destructed!
I truly fear for the kids future. There are many of them who've done everything right and still got it in the pants. They finished high school, graduated from college, and stayed away from drugs, alcohol, violence, and promiscuity only to graduate with tens of thousands of student loan debt with only unemployment and McJobs in their future. Pretty soon kids are going to realize college is a sucker's game, chuck education, and just follow a nihilistic path of drugs, alcohol, crime, and immorality because there is nothing else left for them.
And how many years ago was that? I can tell you that it was twenty years or more before people were saying similar things about their Kias and Hyundais. Let's talk about now, not the 1970's.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My Grandmom had a crappy 1973 Vega for which she traded a perfectly good 1964 Chevrolet Biscayne. Your friend's car sounds very much like my Grandmom's Vega though it didn't get rusty to the point where the back window would fall out. I have seen many like that, including a kid in high school that had a 1974 Vega with the A-pillars rusted through. I have never seen that on any car before or since. However, I never was in the market for cars like the Vega, Pinto, Gremlin, Corolla, Sentra, whatever, anyway.
On the other hand, my Grandpop had driven full-size Chevrolets for the last 44 years of his life and had nothing but an excellent experience with them. My Grandpop's experience with GM convinced me to buy a GM car as my first car and my first new car. I've done extremely well with them too!
OK, you mean about the currently bloating inventories of GM vehicles? Or about the continued low reliability reports of GM vs. Ford and Honda and Toyota? :P
What the heck is this obsession with "low reliability" of ANY vehicle. Today, any manufacturer's car is much more reliable than the most reliable car of 10 years ago. Reliability ratings are so close the difference is microscopic. Ford, Honda, and Toyota are still hella ugly and have nothing to offer me. Ford had three cars that interested me until they super-stupidly dropped them after last year. This leaves GM, Chrysler, and maybe Mercedes-Benz as my only choices.
Pretty sure CR rates the Malibu--the GM I'm most interested in--as 'above average'. Nothing like painting with a broad brush. What do they rate an '08 Camry as? I'm asking, 'cause I don't know. I do know the '07 Camry V6 was rated 'worse than average' at one year.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
As an enthusiast and knowing about the products that Kia, Hyundai, and GM produce, there is no way I could purchase a Kia or a Hyundai. Those companies simply do not offer the performance or style that I can get from GM. Also, I cannot imagine any car being more reliable than my 2003 Corvette or my 2008 SRX. Personal experience has proved to me that my choices have been very good ones!
Pretty sure CR rates the Malibu--the GM I'm most interested in--as 'above average'. Nothing like painting with a broad brush. What do they rate an '08 Camry as? I'm asking, 'cause I don't know. I do know the '07 Camry V6 was rated 'worse than average' at one year.
Nowadays the first three classes (much better than average, better than avg, and avg) are so close together that the difference between them is almost inconsequential. And even the "worse than average" category is has improved enough that nowadays, CR refers to it as "fair".
The only real wild card these days is a car rated "much worse than average". A few years back, to get the solid black dot, 15% or more of respondents had to have had a problem. So, if a car had, say, a 15-16% problem rate, that might not be *too* bad, but that black dot covers a very broad range...from 15% on up to 100% of respondents having a problem!
That's why I wish CR would just report percentage numbers, in addition to the little red and black circles. That way, we could see how close the cars really are.
Well style is subjective, but the new 2.0Turbo that's been popping up in reviews for H/K products has been getting good reviews. The Optima Turbo and Sonata Turbos have been silencing most, if not all of the hype that was going around for the Regal GS for example.
Maybe it's the age thing being a Buick and all. :P
But I think the notion of Hyundai/Kia building junker excels and Scoupes is outdated to say the least. I'm not saying to go out and buy one without shopping the competition but I am saying that if you are resting on what happened in the early years as being the same as today, you may be in for a surprise.
One area that may impress you about a hyundai for example. Check out the paint quality of a new Hyundai compared to your Vette. I have a number of times and was completely blown away comparing a next to flawless Tiburon or a Genesis or heck, even an Elantra to 100 thousand dollar ZR-1's and Z06's covered in orange peel.
Crazy. Hyundai quality has gottne noticably better to a point of disbelief for me.
That's fair but the fact remains if you improve too slowly (GM in tha last 4 decades) and keep your head in the sand (trucks mostly, forget about cars), the consumer leaves the building.
Kinda sad it took the failure, C-11 restructuring and so many lost jobs to finally start making good stuff in 2008.
Like I said in'09, 4 years until their products potentially are better than the competition....maybe!
Comments
There are some extreme opinions on both sides of the fence.
With the cat out of the bag that Toyota and Honda are not invincible, do not have the reliability, quality card stuffed away and out of reach for other manufacturers, the tide is changing. You will always have those who just plain dislike GM, Toyota, BMW, or whomever I guess. For me, its all about buying as close to home as possible. Keeping Americans working, keeping our economy stable and viable. Buying U.S. made goods and services just makes sense if you can think past the now.
Also, while GM and Ford have more recalls, you have to look at what the recalls were for and also how much of it is simply being hidden by foreign companies to bolster their image at home. The nuclear mess in Japan is a good example. The electric company in charge of the whole mess is still acting as if nothing is wrong and it's all under control in the local news and media in Japan. Image/"face" is everything and truth is often buried a dozen pages deep in some report when it comes to corporate disclosures.
Now, true, U.S. companies aren't much better. But they've learned to at least fess up and fix stuff sooner rather than later. Some of that, though, is probably the population's take on it, though. We're much more independent and distrustful of authority than Japan's people are, so "trust us" simply won't work and they've finally figured it out that getting rid of guilt and problems early on works better. Because we pick and pry and gripe when "trust us" is what we hear.
In Japan (most of the rest of the world, in fact), the opposite is generally true - people want everything swept under the rug and out of view to a certain extent. Just as long as everyone is more or less happy and things run smoothly.
Toyota, Honda, Sony, and so on are all having image problems as of late in the U.S, because what works in Japan doesn't work any more over here. ie - we are beginning to figure out that most of the reason that they have "less" problems is maybe because they simply aren't telling us about them in the first place.
I think your a bit out of tune with reality. The reason Toyota, Honda, and Sony have less problems isn't because no one is telling us about them. It is simply because they don't exist, and in fact, there are less problems.
No one needed to tell my parents and brother that the two Camry's, 4 Runner, T100, Tundra, Corolla, and Lexus ES300 are all extremely reliable and just about 100% trouble free. The experience of owning told them there was no problems. The fact they could always go from point A to point B told them that. The fact everytime you took it to a mechanic for maintenance they couldn't find anything to rack up charges for to repair something. The 3 Civics my wife has owned have all been stellar. Honda need not tell me they are reliable, they simply were. Heck, even my American built Accord was reliable, as the auto tranny issue got resolved before leaving me stranded even once, and the car was tight and well built with quality parts for the most part.
As to Sony, I remember a 1987 Sony Trinitron 20" TV that simply wouldn't die for at least 20 years, and the 1994 27" Trinitron Tube TV still works better than most tube TV's that still exist (not many left). Granted, Sony has gone downhill a bit since their heyday in the 80's and 90's, but they don't need to tell me about any problems, because I didn't have any.
1) US bailouts were done WITH my tax money.
2) US car companies have millions more customers that were burned with lemons and vowed to never buy another american vehicle for life (like me).
3) The embargo and protest by consumers against US automakers was so widespread, that it was evident people were protesting with their wallets and the embargo was not being lifted for the Big 3.
4) The gov't had no right to lift the embargo and give the Big 3 our money anyway despite no product in exhange for that money.
5) The Big 3 took the money they didn't deserve and had no right to take, rather than actually earn the money by making worthy product and paying for the sins of their past.
6) The only thing attempted to be swept under the rug is how awful the BIG 3 treated their customers and basically caused financial damage that has never been repaid to former customers.
I don't think Honda and Toyota have millions in the (they will never get my money again camp). GM and Chrysler do; hence the hatred of the bailouts.
What Japan, Germany, Korea, or any other nation does concerning their industry or society, is beyond our control. Because some nation subsidizes their industry or uses child labor, or has no pollution controls, - to get a competitive advantage - is not a good reason for the U.S. to do similar. If we don't like the way a certain country or industry within that country does business, then the U.S. can ban the import of said products.
With our trade deficit it would obviously hurt other countries more to lose their market here, then for us to lose a smaller amount of exports.
So let's elect politicians who will ban Japanese and Korean cars, and other such products, and we'll startup the factories to make the replacements. We'd probably have an economic boom, instead of McD jobs ! Just make the playing field easier for more companies to startup auto production; i.e. -more choices than the Big 3.
I've never owned one of those sensitive cars that downshift for slight terrain changes since my 110 HP V6 '79 Monte Carlo running on cruise control.
Interestingly, when the Neon went from a 3-speed automatic in 2001 to a 4-speed automatic in 2002, the EPA rating stayed the same...24/31. There must have been some slight difference though, because with the newer, dumbed down numbers, the 3-speed is rated 21/28, and 21/29 for the 4-speed. Rounding error, I guess.
With the current Chevy Malibu, the 6-speed automatic is rated 22/33, while the older 4-speed was 22/30. In raw, laboratory numbers (the ones that don't get published, but can be downloaded from the EPA's website), the 4-speed was 27.4/42.6 and the 6-speed was 27.8/46.8
Just posting about how GM's retail market share is way down and which manufactures are on the rise!
But, hey, it's a free country, even though some love nothing better than to whine about it.
Too bad GM is not free from Government control, now, isn't it? So I think I'll keep whining about it until GM is a free auto company!
It's nice to know GM is a big part of the budget deficit. :shades:
Regards,
OW
I couldn't agree more.
Everyone thumps on their chest about "my taxpayer money", but I wish someone could let me know how much it cost a taxpayer making, say, $100K a year.
Bottom Line
I can't help thinking that most of the opposition to the bailout of the GM and Chrysler is held mostly by people who had a bad experience with a 1990s era Oldsmobile or Chrysler and turned to a more reliable Toyota or Honda. Detroit quality is much better today. The gap between Ford and GM products with Toyota and Honda is very small, and the gap itself depends on how one measures quality in the first place. But many can't get past their dated experiences with Detroit product. Just because there isn't a Detroit vehicle in their driveway, or a Detroit plant in their state doesn't mean that a strong GM, Ford and Chrysler isn't good for the national economy. They are.
There is a 2003 Detroit vehicle in my driveway and a "strong GM and C" is good for the economy. But failure is failure and a lot of people remember...particularly when their D3 products keep failing and the Government didn't bail out everyone...only the "too big to fails".
Regards,
OW
With our trade deficit it would obviously hurt other countries more to lose their market here, then for us to lose a smaller amount of exports.
But that's why we have a trade deficit. The money that Japan would have had to spend on its infrastructure and military after WWII (which we took care of largely, instead) went into their economy. When a company was in trouble, a bail-out or assistance was pretty much a given.
As a result, Japan lost very little of its heavy industry during its "lost decade". That competitive advantage that they maintain really does force us to do the same or else they will simply strip us of our manufacturing capacity and we'll cease to be a player in that industry. A good example of this is England. They simply have no real domestically owned automobile industry any more. They failed to protect it (note- government control of it isn't proper "protection", we both agree on that I suspect ) and it's gone, never to really return.
Our problem is that we don't do enough in the way of protecting our industries from outside vulture economics and competition. We've lost entire industries in the last 30 years that nobody really did much to stop. First textiles and clothing, then computers and electronics, then furniture and interior supplies, then electrical and pluming parts, and on and on.
As someone pointed out, we've gone from a nation of producers to a nation of consumers. And that's what will kill us in the end. Because without those middle-class jobs that we should have protected, we can't maintain our lifestyle or economic power. The economic engine has simply stopped moving at that point, and we've become yet another nation of welfare bums on the world market who are asking for goodwill and a handout from other nations.
Or to be more specific, the problem is that people listen too much to talk radio and the like and believe the Kool-Aid that the corporations and special interests try to sell us. True conservative thinking about economic policies doesn't see "socialism" as a factor at all in this. It's simply what you do to protect your infrastructure and resource base for future generations.
No. Say it's not true! The wunderkar company with perfect cars for so many years misled people?
>I link at least 3 people a day who don't believe or had no idea about this bail out for Toyota.
>Toyota has done a bang up job in hiding this money.
toyota would never, never hide anything!
> Toyota and Honda are not invincible, do not have the reliability, quality card stuffed away
You mean the toy sludge and honda transmissions and the popping welds in the hondas and the VCM problems and the runaway vehicles weren't just made up by the people with conspiracy theories? :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
His rational was that because Japan does not have raw materials of its own, Japan and its industries had to do that to produce to keep the economy progressing. In other words, whatever is okay.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
THE FAIRY TALE
By December 2008, years of decline had finally caught up with Chrysler and General Motors. Unlike Ford, which had moved aggressively to fix its longstanding problems — chiefly by shedding unprofitable subsidiaries and renegotiating labor agreements — GM and Chrysler were still plagued by incompetence and inefficiency.
Both automakers were burdened with labor contracts that undermined their flexibility and saddled them with massive retiree pension and health-benefit costs. For years, both companies had also been losing market share: Once-proud GM had lost $40 billion in 2007, and in 2008 alone saw its sales decline by 45%. Chrysler, meanwhile, was languishing under the inept management of Cerberus Capital, which had bought the company in the spring of 2007 from the German automaker Daimler. (Daimler had merged with Chrysler in 1998 only to see its new American acquisition become an unsustainable liability.) By 2008, Chrysler's market share had been declining precipitously for a decade, falling by more than 30% in that year alone.
MANAGED DECLINE
The Obama administration's economic policy, therefore, returns us to the thinking of the 1950s and '60s — to an economy in which big business, big labor, and big government are tied together in a relationship of mutual succor and support.
The auto bailouts exemplify this new reality. Sold as a means of revitalizing the economy, they are in fact a means of transforming the relationship between the state and the market in a way that empowers large players at the cost of economic growth. The overall effect of such state capitalism is a kind of controlled stasis, in which the preservation of old jobs takes priority over the creation of new ones. Managed decline, rather than dynamic growth, is the defining feature of the Obama economy.
It is not hard to understand why those who embrace this vision of politics and economics would see the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors as a great success story. But their notion of success is a far cry from old-fashioned prosperity. The Obama administration's idea of what is good for General Motors, much like its idea of what is good for America, is unlikely to be particularly good for either.
Don't you just love the idea that failure is good for America? Because that is the lesson of the Auto Industry Bailouts, not to mention the entire financial industry.
We will see if GM makes it or breaks down again.
Regards,
OW
Despite all the political rambling about bailing out GM, the actual cost is in reality a pimple on the US budget. I understand differences in personal opinion regarding whether a bailout should have been done in principle. But trying to argue the matter over costs is distorted (same as thinking you can resolve the deficit mess by simply only cutting discretionary areas of the budget). Trying to argue pro and con based only on projected economic impact is probably next to impossible because such a calculation would almost inherently be influenced by assumptions of the individual evaluator.
As to your specific question, a significant portion of what's outstanding will be recouped as the government sells off its stock. You could estimate this by taking the amount of the "net" (what didn't get paid back in full) GM bailout after stock liquidation, then subtract out the interest GM paid to the gov on the loan portion net of the say the 10 year treasury rate representing the average gov cost of money. Next, divide the result by the total fiscal year federal budget amount. Then take that percentage (likely a very tiny fraction of one percentage point) times your net federal income tax on that $100K. I don't know your net tax bracket and I'm not interested enough to research the precise figures, but if Uncle sold all their GM stock today, I'd guess maybe a couple of pennies out of your $100K salary tops. By deferring the sale of stock as announced today, they might actually make a small profit and your share of the loss would then become -0-. Media and political extremist talk has some people all worked up and thinking a much more exaggerated figure. But when do media and political types really do arithmetic? Believe it or not, GM is starting to become a value stock darling on Wall Street given its streamlined costs after BK and low around 6 P/E ratio. The gov shouldn't rush out and sell just yet.
I think you may need to stop listening to just Fox News for a few minutes, look up some actual numbers and then get a calculator. See my response to Uplanderguy for a more business school look at the numbers.
By the way, I think you're a big Kia and Hyundai cheerleader - they can't do wrong. Well, I just recently got stuck with one of those cramped Kia Sedona's - what a pile! Be honest, those Korean companies have their mix of good and crap just like everyone else.
There were much better investments to be made than GM.
I disagree. The Japanese built better cars. The US customers wanted them. The protectionists at the auto makers got Reagan to institute "voluntary" import quotas. So the Japanese started building plants here so they wouldn't be imported. And they also went into more expensive, larger segments vs. the original economy car segment - all because they were forced into quotas. You are looking at revisionist history. Clearly the US consumers wanted those Japanese vehicles, even when the prices became HIGHER than the US makes.
And that's GREAT. No, I'm dead serious. If we make it too expensive to produce vehicles abroad and force them to build industry locally, we've won - our manufacturing and job base expands and they pour money into our economy. NUUMI, for instance, contributed roughly 1 Billion dollars a year in upkeep and salaries to the California economy while it was operating.
That's part of what real protection of our industries is. Not this focus on short-term gains that leaves us deeper in debt because there's nothing to replace the vacuum created by lost jobs. Tariffs work perfectly if they are also coupled with tax incentives and breaks to local industry to stay at home or for others to build here.
But what we have gotten is NAFTA and other idiocy that drops all levels of protection and actually gives incentives to companies to move out of the U.S. The exact opposite, in fact. Sure, they've now got people actually believing that this raping of our industries is somehow "good capitalism", but who's going to be able to afford to buy anything when we're producing nothing ourselves in a decade or two? Fancy economic theories and high stock earnings won't keep the power on or a family fed when a McJob is all that's left for your kids after college. Our generation is more or less fine - it's what my son has to deal with in a decade that truly frightens me.
Let's keep teaching that in school. Failure is the best ticket to.....success!
Of course Kia and Hyundai made junk just like GM...just not for so many more years. Toyota is failing now but not in epic proportions like GM at every level of business.
I'll let the business school guys respond to your post.
To help other companies avoid GM's fate, it's worth exploring the five reasons that GM failed:
1. Bad financial policies. You might be surprised to learn that GM has been bankrupt since 2006 and has avoided a filing for years thanks to the graces of the banks and bondholders. But for years it has used cars as razors to sell consumers a monthly package of razor blades -- in the form of highly profitable car loans.
And the two Harvard MBAs who drove GM to bankruptcy -- Rick Wagoner and Fritz Henderson -- both rose up from GM's finance division, rather than its vehicle design operation. (Read more about GM's bad financial policies here.)
2. Uncompetitive vehicles. Compared to its toughest competitors -- like Toyota Motor Co. (TM) -- GM's cars were poorly designed and built, took too long to manufacture at costs that were too high, and as a result, fewer people bought them, leaving GM with excess production capacity.
3. Ignoring competition. GM has been ignoring competition -- with a brief interruption (Saturn in the 1980s) -- for about 50 years. At its peak, in 1954, GM controlled 54 percent of the North American vehicle market. Last year, that figure had tumbled to 19 percent. Toyota and its peers took over that market share.
4. Failure to innovate. Since GM was focused on profiting from finance, it did not really care that much about building better vehicles. GM's management failed to adapt GM to changes in customer needs, upstart competitors, and new technologies
5. Managing in the bubble. GM managers got promoted by toeing the CEO's line and ignoring external changes. What looked stupid from the perspective of customer and competitors was smart for those bucking for promotions.
GM's failure after 101 years is an indictment of American management in general. It highlights the damage to our economy that results when finance becomes the tail that wags the economic dog. And it shows what happens to any company that rests on its laurels and fails to adapt to change.
Be honest...you REALLY don't want to defend the history of GM and calculate the cost with a pencil and calculator. You really believe it was wrong....right?
You actually perceive there are major issues remaining at GM after the bailout that are brewing just under the corporate communications umbrella, right? :confuse:
Regards,
OW
Maybe that's why their debt makes our debt pale in comparision.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
does force us to do the same or else they will simply strip us of our manufacturing capacity and we'll cease to be a player in that industry
Again that is because we are too soft, allowing these countries to set the rules to get a competitive advantage and then not do anything about it - stopping them from selling here. Say if Japan subsidizes Toyota, or India allows child labor to make sneakers, what does our government do - it gives a stern warning and then continues to allow the import of the products, and U.S. citizens buy them based on cost. And as you said U.S. industry has suffered.
In order to solve that problem the U.S. government needs to have some kahunas and not just criticize. They need to say - Japan/Toyota subsidize all you want. But remember those 2 million Toyotas and all the parts you sell here each year. No more. 0, Nada. YOU DON'T DO BUSINESS HERE." The U.S. is still the 800 pound gorilla in the economic room, and we can set the rules if we want.
If the U.S. stopped allowing cheap, foreign-supported goods into this country, then those goods would have to be produced here, which again would be a boom for U.S. jobs and industry.
The current policy has shown its effects hasn't it? So why would anyone argue that we should continue it? Maybe you want to suggest that now that GM "is doing so well" that they need to add a few new divisions? or bring back Saturn, Pontiac, and Olds?
Regards,
OW
I don't know much about Sony, though my friend had a circa 1983 Sony console that lasted up until last year when it gave up the ghost. I still have my Zenith console television from about the same time and it still delivers an awesome picture.
Then we should absolutely do NO BUSINESS with China for all the things you wrote and more.
What the U.S. now needs is a Marshall Plan for it's own industrial infrastructure which now very much resembles those bombed-out areas in postwar Germany and Japan in just about every city across the land.
I felt similarly about Subaru and now I own 2 of them... What's the saying? "Don't knock it till you try it?"
On the other hand, my Grandpop had driven full-size Chevrolets for the last 44 years of his life and had nothing but an excellent experience with them. My Grandpop's experience with GM convinced me to buy a GM car as my first car and my first new car. I've done extremely well with them too!
OK, you mean about the currently bloating inventories of GM vehicles? Or about the continued low reliability reports of GM vs. Ford and Honda and Toyota? :P
Ford, Honda, and Toyota are still hella ugly and have nothing to offer me. Ford had three cars that interested me until they super-stupidly dropped them after last year. This leaves GM, Chrysler, and maybe Mercedes-Benz as my only choices.
Nowadays the first three classes (much better than average, better than avg, and avg) are so close together that the difference between them is almost inconsequential. And even the "worse than average" category is has improved enough that nowadays, CR refers to it as "fair".
The only real wild card these days is a car rated "much worse than average". A few years back, to get the solid black dot, 15% or more of respondents had to have had a problem. So, if a car had, say, a 15-16% problem rate, that might not be *too* bad, but that black dot covers a very broad range...from 15% on up to 100% of respondents having a problem!
That's why I wish CR would just report percentage numbers, in addition to the little red and black circles. That way, we could see how close the cars really are.
Maybe it's the age thing being a Buick and all. :P
But I think the notion of Hyundai/Kia building junker excels and Scoupes is outdated to say the least. I'm not saying to go out and buy one without shopping the competition but I am saying that if you are resting on what happened in the early years as being the same as today, you may be in for a surprise.
One area that may impress you about a hyundai for example. Check out the paint quality of a new Hyundai compared to your Vette. I have a number of times and was completely blown away comparing a next to flawless Tiburon or a Genesis or heck, even an Elantra to 100 thousand dollar ZR-1's and Z06's covered in orange peel.
Crazy. Hyundai quality has gottne noticably better to a point of disbelief for me.
Kinda sad it took the failure, C-11 restructuring and so many lost jobs to finally start making good stuff in 2008.
Like I said in'09, 4 years until their products potentially are better than the competition....maybe!
Regards,
OW