Why destroy the car companies?

[Dogmudgeon]

Because it also destroys one of the most powerful unions in the USA, the United Auto Workers.

Now that GM is trading at $3, perhaps the UAW should BUY one or more of the car campanies.

--p!

[AndyTiedye]

1. K/R

Good idea! (I suggested the same the other day).

[soothsayer]

2. Didn't the car companies destroy themselves?

[slackmaster]

51. Yes, they did.

:nuke:

[JackRiddler]

3. Your question implies there was a destroyer.

Who would that have been? You can cite trade policy and other factors, but to me it's pretty obvious who bears the greatest responsibility, and that's the companies themselves for an adamant refusal to adapt to the world and develop electric cars, hybrids, compacts and high fuel efficiency power trains instead of Hummers and trucks. They chased the immediate high profit margin for the next quarter, in fact they celebrated that as a philosophy.

Let's put the bailout into building the railways - those are union jobs, too.

[Edweird]

4. They built what the citizens wanted. Toyota and Nissan built full size trucks, too.

Everybody stopped buying cars because the economy tanked, not the other way around.
The fact that the oil companies screwed us with the gouging hurt, too.
Get your facts straight.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Toyota and Honda now build HUGE trucks. nt

[JackRiddler]

8. Yes, of course. And they had nothing to do with what "the citizens wanted."

The trends just sprang spontaneously from nowhere. Starting in the 1990s people suddenly wanted monster trucks and SUVs, no advertising was necessary, no pricing policy involved, no influence by the companies on the government to advantage this policy (no tax break for SUVs passed by Bush in 2002, either, that was a figment, right?).

The consumer is a total sovereign that always independently develops desires entirely from within its own magical mind. Producers are merely service tools catering to whatever comes out of the consumer.

This isn't about a few facts, it's about vast swathes of the world and how it works that you apparently are unaware exist.

And yeah, the oil companies played a major role -- not in the recent price spike, but before that, in providing oil at less than half its actual cost, thanks to the externalization of environmental, health and military costs on to a pliant government and an unwitting people.

Meanwhile, Europe had $4 gas two decades ago thanks to the fuel tax, and this price reflected something like the real cost of the fuel in the tank. The market reacted accordingly - rationally - with compact cars, fuel efficiency, better mass transport and development of alternative energies among the results.

I like how you confuse consumer with citizen, by the way, that speaks volumes.

[Edweird]

9. "Starting in the 1990s people suddenly wanted monster trucks and SUVs,"

Where do you live? A cave? That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Seriously. Get a clue. Trucks have been around since the beginning of the auto industry.
People have owned trucks as personal vehicles for quite some time. Big ones. The Chevy Suburban was first introduced in 1936. The Japanese started building full size trucks because they realized they were missing out on a market segment. People like trucks. They always have, and always will. Deal with it.

eh, consumer, citizen... whatever. The fact that you latch on to such a petty thing speaks volumes.

[JackRiddler]

10. So what was the market share of trucks in 1936 compared to the 1990s?

And does it help you to call people dumb while you say stupid things?

http://www.forbesautos.com/buyersguide/suv/2007/07-suv-history.html

While the Walter P. Chrysler Museum proclaims that the SUV craze started with the Jeep Wagoneer, which was built from the ground-up with four-wheel-drive in mind, other manufacturers claim legacy or leadership with SUVs. Land Rover enthusiasts cite the 4WD Series I designed in the late '40s as perhaps the most iconic SUV whose design lives on in the Land Rover Defender (not currently sold in the U.S.). Not coincidentally, the first Land Rover was based on the Willys Jeep, many examples of which littered Britain after WWII. Others would claim Ford’s early Bronco, Chevrolet's Blazer, or tractor-maker International Harvester’s Scout models led the way for SUVs becoming so popular. All of these models were a hit from the late ‘50s through the ‘70s and have became increasingly popular with hipsters and tastemakers in recent years.

The Ford Explorer is notable for popularizing four-door midsize SUVs in the early '90s, though Chevy and GMC fans will argue that four-door versions of the Blazer and Jimmy played a part. The last two decades have seen a steady stream of new SUVs from every manufacturer, with increasing levels of sophistication and comfort.

One distinct up-stream swimmer is the militaristic Hummer H1, which AM General first offered to consumers in 1992. Unrivaled as the most serious, brutish four-wheel-drive vehicle around, its evolution from the U.S. Army's turret-gun toting HUMVEE reads like a Hollywood movie script starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Actor-turned-governor of California Schwarzenegger was so enamored by the HUMVEE’s capabilities during the filming of the 1991 feature film "Terminator II: Judgment Day," that he approached AM General to build a civilian version for the streets. Not only was the Hummer H1 born, but it has since been followed by the H2 and the recently introduced smaller H3. An even smaller H4 is reportedly in the works. The Hummer’s Herculean appearance, war-tested durability and get-out-of-my-way stance quickly made it the darling of attention-hungry celebrities and wealthy, conspicuous consumers, not to mention commercial users, despite the fact that environmentalists vehemently bash its size and abysmal fuel consumption.

While the now-discontinued H1 went a long way to concretizing the idea of a premium SUV in the minds of consumers, most didn't want something so extreme. As a result, luxury car manufacturers in the U.S. and abroad accommodated with increasingly posh SUVs. In fall of 1998, Cadillac marched into new territory with its gigantic Escalade.

[Edweird]

12. In the mid-1960's, American car manufacturers were seeing the success of the utility vehicle market,

what today we call "SUV's".

(While the Walter P. Chrysler Museum proclaims that the SUV craze started with the Jeep Wagoneer, which was built from the ground-up with four-wheel-drive in mind, other manufacturers claim legacy or leadership with SUVs. Land Rover enthusiasts cite the 4WD Series I designed in the late '40s as perhaps the most iconic SUV whose design lives on in the Land Rover Defender (not currently sold in the U.S.). Not coincidentally, the first Land Rover was based on the Willys Jeep, many examples of which littered Britain after WWII. Others would claim Ford’s early Bronco, Chevrolet's Blazer, or tractor-maker International Harvester’s Scout models led the way for SUVs becoming so popular. All of these models were a hit from the late ‘50s through the ‘70s and have became increasingly popular with hipsters and tastemakers in recent years.)


The Jeep Wagoneer was introduced on November 14, 1962
The 'Willys' was used in WWII!
The first CJ (or Civilian Jeep)(the CJ-2) was introduced in 1944 by Willys, and the same basic vehicle stayed in production through seven variants and three corporate parents until 1986.

Originally the term Land Rover referred to one specific vehicle (see Land Rover Series), a pioneering civilian all-terrain utility vehicle launched on April 30, 1948.

The Ford Bronco was introduced to the public in August of 1965 to compete against Jeep's CJ-5 and International Harvester's Scout in the burgeoning recreational four wheel drive vehicle market.

The International Harvester Scout was one of the first production American civilian off-road sport utility vehicles. It was originally created as a competitor to the Jeep, and like that vehicle, early models featured fold-down windshields. The first generation Scout and second generation Scout II were produced as two-door vehicles with options of a half cab pickup truck or a removable full hard or soft top. Scouts were manufactured from 1961 to 1980 in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

The Blazer is similar to, and can be considered to be based upon, GM's larger offering, the mighty Suburban. This vehicle actually dates back to 1935, when the Chevy Carryall was introduced, essentially a two door panel truck or wagon. One of the models of this truck was the "Carryall Suburban", the "Carryall" later being dropped from the name. This two-door, long-wheelbase configuration continued until 1967, through various body style and size changes.

In the mid-1960's, American car manufacturers were seeing the success of the utility vehicle market, what today we call "SUV's". The Jeep of course had been around since the Second World War; International Harvester (makers of farm machinery) had also seen success with their Scout and Travelall lines, and Ford had the first-generation Bronco. Four-wheel drive was just becoming popular from the factory, as aftermarket companies had been doing good business selling four-wheel drive add-on kits. The market was ripe for go-anywhere, utility vehicles for the mass market.

1967 saw the introduction of a new generation of Chevy trucks, including the Suburban, now with an extra passenger door (presumably in reaction to the IHC Travelall, which also had three doors.) GM brought out a short-wheelbase, two-door (topless) version of their truck line called the Blazer in 1969, marking the beginning of the history of the Blazer name. (GMC enthusiasts will note that the Jimmy nameplate didn't start life until 1970 -- and I hear that 2WD models weren't available until 1970 as well.)

You're arguing about trucks with a redneck. Not a smart move.
Equally 'not smart' is using a 'rebuttal' that makes my point for me.
"All of these models were a hit from the late ‘50s through the ‘70s" Which, according to my calender, came before the 90's. Maybe you use a different calender than me and I'm being insensitive to your 'chronological disorder'. If that's the case, I'll try to go a little easier on you.

[JackRiddler]

15. You call yourself a redneck, which may say enough.

Okay, we get it, you love big trucks.

You might even be one among the 5% of the population who have a practical use for them, instead of being drawn in by bullshit marketing and the fake feeling of being a road-dominator. I wouldn't want to deny that to you.

You still seem incapable of digesting certain basic points:

1) The truck/SUV market grew to historically high shares of the overall market in the 1990s (I don't care if certain models were "popular" before that), in a way that everyone saw in the sudden invasion of behemoths standing pointlessly in every traffic snarl from sea to oil-poisoned sea.

2) Thanks to subsidies and cost externalization, car buyers, drivers and gas buyers in the US have for many decades not been paying the actual costs of automobiles. Taxpayers paid a share (newsflash: taxpayers =/ drivers), and patsy populations (like those living next to third-world mines) paid a share, and breathers paid a share, so that car buyers would not have to. So I don't want to hear any bullshit about how the "consumers wanted it" and that's why the SUV became such a factor in the 1990s. A whole world was arranged so that US consumers could "want" cars they didn't need. Government, military, oil companies and car companies played their roles in creating (or destroying, if you will) that world.

If Detroit didn't know what they were doing by refusing to invest in developing alternative energy, if they didn't know what they were doing when they wanted to push SUVs and fought fuel standards and got the government to actually confer tax breaks on said junk-behemoths, that's too bad.

They don't deserve a bailout now (effectively, a bailout on top of the subsidies they've always received). The management deserves to be expelled, for starters. The government should not save these companies but take them over and start cranking out some hybrid compacts in a few years. Otherwise, fuck them.

[Edweird]

16. Round and round we go.

1) There was no "sudden invasion of behemoths". They have been here the whole time. Yes, people bought them BECAUSE THEY LIKED THEM. I have no doubt that truck/suv ownership was at its highest point in the 90's, simply because people already owned trucks and suv's (starting in 1936) and have continued buying them. There was nothing 'sudden' about it.

2) Whether or not you believe people have been paying 'actual costs' or not, people bought vehicles you do not approve of because that was their preference. Not everybody likes exactly what you like, not everybody sees things the way you do. There are many many different manufacturers and sizes and types of vehicles to choose from, and the people that bought trucks and suv's did so of their own volition. Nobody pointed a gun at their head or threatened their families.

And if they don't do it your way, fuck em. Force 'em to build vehicles that people don't want. That'll teach 'em. That'll show us all, won't it?

You've clearly got some serious 'control' issues.

[JackRiddler]

17. Control issues?

Sounds like a country that would establish a rapid reaction force to invade the Middle East thirty years ago and finally actually do so in 2003. Sounds like a world that's parcelled and labeled every stretch of land to accommodate its favored mode of transportation.

Fossil-fuel powered automotive society hasn't been around for very long, historically speaking, and we'll see if it isn't already more than halfway through.

[MadHound]

37. You might want to actually do some research before you open your mouth and look foolish

As an old car afficianado, I know quite a bit about the history of US auto production and use. Yes, you are correct the American auto makers introduced a Suburban type vehicle in the '30's, actually earlier, in the '20's. However these weren't true SUV's as we know them today. Instead what they were is basically an enclosed box on a car frame, unlike modern SUV's which are an enclosed box on a truck frame. This was the panel wagon style. The first true SUV didn't appear until 1988, the Chevy Suburban, which was indeed an enclosed box on a truck frame.

Yes, trucks and panel wagons had been around forever, however they were relegated to being work vehicles. They didn't have many amenities, their ride was quite rough, and if you drove one on a daily basis, unless you had to, you were thought of as a hayseed, a hick and laughed at. This attitude prevailed up through the 1980's, I remember that quite distinctly.

That started changing in the late eighties and early nineties. Detroit started building SUV's, and equipping them with better rides and better amenities. As these vehicles started providing all the features of a passenger car, they were bought up in great quantities as passenger vehicles, not work vehicles. This all led to the boom in truck and SUV sales.

If you notice the advertising today, the amenities are still prominently featured. Luxury interiors, leather seats, etc. etc. They still want to sell these vehicles as passenger cars, not work vehicles, and this has been their business model for almost twenty years now. It wasn't the public demanding that Detroit give us a comfy work vehicle, it was Detroit deliberately enticing the public to buy these behemoths as passenger cars, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. I still see 3/4 ton diesel dually trucks doing the daily commute, without a spot of dust, rust or damage on them, and if they were real work trucks they'd be banged up within the first six months. Detroit did indeed foist this trend upon us, not the other way around.

[Edweird]

57. Mmm hmm. As a person that has actually OWNED these, I know you are full of shit.

The CHEVY suburban (NOT A "Suburban TYPE thing", but the ACTUAL FUCKING SUBURBAN) was introduced in 1936.

"Introduced way back in 1936, the Chevrolet (and GMC) Suburban was based on a commercial panel truck, but instead of having a huge, windowless cargo area there was a large passenger compartment. Basically truck-based station wagons, the early Suburbans had two doors (not counting the two-piece tailgate) and three rows of seats that seated up to eight passengers. "

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=46027

*I* need to do research lest *I* look foolish?

Project much?

You have NO CLUE what you are talking about. None. Zip. Zero.
Do some research, then get back to me.

I have personally owned a 1969 International Harvester, 1972 K5 Blazer 4X4, 1985 Chevy Suburban with the 6.2 diesel, and currently own a 1997 Chevy Suburban K1500 (4X4).
As a broke ass motherfucker, I was forced to work on them myself, and I am intimately familiar with and immensely knowledgeable about them. Not to mention the fact that the information that shows you to be a clueless blowhard is instantly available via 'the google'.

[JVS]

33. The traditional story behind the rise of the SUV is that...

due to CAFE requirments played a significant role. The automobile companies' efforts to replace the large family cars of the late 1970 with smaller more efficient cars was difficult. A Kcar might be great for commuting but if you are used to putting a family of 5 or six in a Chevrolet Caprice for a long trip, then the Kcar is going to be a pain in the ass. Meanwhile the large stationwagons of the past were dying out. If you want to see an example of what families had used as there vehicles back in the day, you can see the last version of it in the Buick Roadmaster Station Wagon (or Caprice if you wish). Chrysler solved this problem by making the minivan, which was essentially a very tall kcar capable of seating seven. This satisfied many, but it was considered a bit frumpy and had an unflattering association with domesticity. SUVs had already existed for some time but were generally a small market niche. Eventually some genius realized that because the truck platforms didn't have to reach CAFE standards as high as normal passenger cars, the company could sell the same kind of family cars they had been selling for decades by putting it on a truck frame instead of a car frame. Add the rustic image that the already existing SUVs had, and it was easy to market too.
I mean, how different is an SUV from a tall version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_Roadmaster#1991-1996

[depakid]

19. They also engaged in MASSIVE demand creation for SUV's

which INTENTIONALLY fed and reinforced dysfunctional behavior- and are therefore just as responsible for the problem as shortsighted and fearful American consumers.

[Edweird]

20. "demand creation" "reinforced dysfunctional behavior""shortsighted and fearful American consumers".

Get over yourself. Really. They built them because people were buying them. People bought them because they LIKED THEM. There was no 'subliminal coercion', no paid thugs, nothing. People are just as free to go buy a motorcycle or three wheeled thingy if they wanted or anything in between. The consumers are not 'victims' and they are not 'dysfunctional'.
I realize that you are 'Mr-Australia-and-the-US-are-IDENTICAL' and that you imagine yourself to be some authority on the American population (as well as a know-it-all). You clearly are not. But it is obviously a struggle for you to deal with the fact that SOME PEOPLE LIKE THINGS YOU DO NOT. You may need counseling for that. The fact that people make choices that you do not like DOES NOT MAKE THEM DYSFUNCTIONAL. People will make decisions you do not approve of. That's life.

[Liberal Gramma]

28. OK, some people DO like SUVs and trucks and...

a free society is all about choices, but shouldn't choices that are adversarial to the public good be costly? If you are a farmer or plumber or live in a heavy snow region, you may need one. If you're a soccer mom, you might not. The tax breaks should be linked to need, and energy efficient cars should be given a tax break first. Another buying incentive is advertising: how many SUVs have been advertised as sturdy workhorses and how many as fun recreational vehicles? SUVS and trucks have bee pitched in the same way that cigarettes were pitched before that became illegal: fun and cool.

[Edweird]

60. Um, that isn't the case already? They are expensive to buy and operate.

A Prius gets you a tax REBATE AND you get to drive in the HOV lane (here in Florida anyway)...

[depakid]

29. Irony, irony

You do realize your ad hominem reinforced some of the points of the previous post?

(that on top of ignoring and belittling the social science behind advertizing- something that it would appear from other posts that in a libertarian way- you're keen on).

[JackRiddler]

39. "I want it" is not a reason for taxpayers to subsidize a disastrous industry

I want cleaner air, less noise, pedestrian zones and a rail line from New York to San Francisco that's cheaper than a flight. So do millions of other people. Funny thing is, GM isn't buying hours of ad time on football games to sell us on what we want. They're not buying politicians to subsidize what we want with tax money and public bonds. The Pentagon resources aren't devoted to building railways powered by wind turbines, they're devoted to securing foreign oil supplies by force. The corporate media aren't devoting air time to the need to save the railways as an important part of American tradition, even though railways are American tradition too. These things didn't come about only because people wanted them, they came about because corporations threw their weight around to help make it so.

[Romulox]

40. Except for cheap credit you mean, right?

[JackRiddler]

42. False dichotomy.

the years of easy (if deceptively onerous) credit to the people and the heist of the millennium being pulled off by the banks do not give carte blanche for every other heist that a corporation dreams up.

I support intelligent industrial subsidies. Detroit should be rescued - by a takeover:

- current executive level decapitated (and investigated)

- all R&D into alternate powertrains

- get cheap electric cars and hybrids on the streets now.

There's a lot more; there are rail lines and wind turbines to be built everywhere; a universal health care program would end one of the biggest drags on Detroit's financing. But that would be a start, no?

[Romulox]

46. LOL. A comparison is the OPPOSITE of a dichotomy.

If a dichotomy had been suggested, it would indeed be false--the situations are all too similar.

That said, your prescriptions for the Big 3 would be easier to take if you had similar plans to restructure Citi's business, e.g.

[JackRiddler]

47. I'm not sure that makes sense...

Why should I have a plan for banking in order to have an opinion on the Big 3?

Citi and the present-day financial sector should be allowed to burn to the ground by the fire they set. It's painful, but there is no redeeming the situation by "bailout." The $700 billion and much more should have been put/can still be put toward large infrastructural projects - possibly related to transportation and energy.

What's your plan?

[Edweird]

58. Blaming it on "advertising" is some serious industrial strength denial.

In case you haven't noticed, other car companies advertise, too.

[JackRiddler]

63. Sounds like you read every fourth word and then repeat the same thing as before.

Fine, I won't "blame" "it" on "advertising."

I'll blame it on idiots.

[Romulox]

21. "The DEVIL made me do it!" 2008 style.

:eyes:

[conscious evolution]

36. People bought them because of marketing and advertising.

The auto industry mounted a very powerful advertising program that convinced people that they MUST HAVE huge gas guzzlers.That they NEED the room or hauling capacity of huge trucks.That they are SAFER in a large vehicle.

Never underestimate the power of advertising.Lots of thought and creativity goes into creating a 'need' for whatever product or idea that corporations want to sell.

[Kalyke]

45. That's bullshit.

I'm guessing you live in an urban area. Those of us who dane to live outside of the Northeast actually DO know what's been selling in the Heartland and it's trucks and SUVs and it wasn't because of advertising.

It's because it's POPULAR. Trucks are popular among suburban and rural men and SUVs are popular among suburban Moms who don't like mini-vans.

Most people are NOT as effected by the so-called subliminal anymore because most people don't even watch commercials anymore. They fast-forward through them or go to the potty.

[conscious evolution]

49. You should take a class on advertising or marketing.

A good ad campaign can get people to support or buy anything.

[Edweird]

56. Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact

that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

People bought them because they LIKE them.

[conscious evolution]

61. They like them because

advertising and marketing companies convinced them to like them.
Just like they convinced people that buying bottled water is a good thing.
Just like they convinced people that a piss water swill is the king of beers.
Just like,many years ago,they convinced people that smoking tobacco is a good thing.
Just like they convinced people that Mili Vanilli made good music.
Just like they have convinced people that if they are not wearing the latest fashions makes them some how lesser people.
Like how they convinced people that a war in Iraq would be a good thing.
Or how they convinced people that hedge funds or 401k's or mutual funds are a good thing.

Denial? Denial is refusing to acknowledge that advertising can convince people of almost anything.
Sigmund Freud? Google his nephew,Dr Edward Bernays,and look at what he did with Freuds work.

[Edweird]

62. Because, as we all know, nobody but truck makers had marketing departments.

Everybody else had to rely on 'word of mouth'.
:rofl:

[Edweird]

59. Right, because only 'the bad guys' had marketing departments....

:eyes:

[Kalyke]

44. Thank you.

That is the truth.

And, American cars are less expensive, less expensive to repair (should they need it) and are as well-built as those foreign, erm... so and sos.

[pointblank]

54. Decider = Destroyer nt

[Captain Hilts]

5. Folks here are ready to pile on. nt

[JohnnyRingo]

7. We're the only country in the world that would let it's major auto maunufacturers fail

If Honda, Mercedes, or Kia fall into such financial straits, their respective governments would step up without condition or protest from legislators to bail them out (I believe).

[StreetKnowledge]

11. And you're quite correct

Those nations also protect their own industries. America doesn't, thinking the free market will do that for them. Yeah, right. Reaganomics in action.

[rhett o rick]

52. The US automakers want to go bankrupt so they can start over with their labor contracts.

What we have needed all along is tariffs on foreign made cars and parts. But since the US automakers get a lot of their parts and some cars from overseas and Mexico, they have been against that all along.

How do you suggest "we" bail them out?

[RC]

13. The Big 3 is the next to the last Major industry to exist in this country.

The last is our passenger and war plane manufacturing. How are we going to wage war on the rest of the world when we are dependent on the rest of the world to build our war toys?

[Greyhound]

14. You mean the one remaining company that is still in the process of breaking the unions,

Blackmailing WA, and off-shoring production?

[Romulox]

22. You are under some bizarre misapprehension that letting the Big 3 fail will help the unions.

:wtf:

[Greyhound]

24. Did I say that? No.

So why would you try to attribute it to me?

News-flash, unless somebody can change the way this whole issue is being framed, bailout or not, UAW workers are going to get fucked.

[pampango]

25. One could argue that to bail out the Big 3's management without a "plan" to force

them to change the way they run the industry is a great way to destroy the union, since it is withering away along with the companies as their mismanagement continues.

[Greyhound]

27. That's right. All we are hearing is how the unions have to concede even

more to "be competitive", nothing about mismanagement and certainly nothing about management salaries and bonuses being slashed and eliminated or even tied to performance.

If we let them fail, the unions will be eliminated and if we bail them out the unions, while remaining in name, will be rendered useless.

The most disheartening thing is that nobody (that matters) is proposing any of the plans that will retain the wage/benefit packages for the unions by changing the way they do business.
:grr:

[JVS]

31. Face the music. UAW workers are already fucked.

UAW workers have been fucked for a long long time. This is just the final convulsive stage of that fucking.

[robinlynne]

18. I'm not destroying a car company. Who do you ask your question in that way?

[rucky]

23. That would be fantastic.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Perhaps the UAW shouldn't have made enemies of so many Democrats.

Just a thought.

[JVS]

30. What are you talking about?

I don't recall the UAW making enemies of Democrats.

Sure there are a lot of Democrats who don't really give a shit about the big 3, and I guess since the UAW has decided that its interests are bound to that of the big three there might be a difference of opinions as to the choice of action in this situation, but I don't remember the UAW antagonizing Democrats or vice-versa.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. They lost my support with their ludicrous proposal for fuel efficiency standards.

The whole point of that plan was to be discriminatory against companies that had already achieved high fuel efficiency in their vehicles. There is absolutely no reason why we should be punishing companies who have produced extremely fuel efficient vehicles and favoring those who have not.

[JVS]

38. I hadn't seen that.

Do you have a link where I can read their plan and how it is against more efficient vehicles?

[blue_onyx]

48. Or maybe we could stop focusing on CAFE

and increase the gas tax. The one thing that really changed driving habits and oil consumption was high gas prices. It's just not something that's politically easy to do.

[Romulox]

41. Right. Labor is the longstanding enemy of the Left.

:silly:

[MrSlayer]

32. Bingo. Kill the Unions.

That is their goal.

[JuniperLea]

53. And they will do that regardless of what "we" do

That is already in the plan. The misinformation they are pushing is disgusting.

[Hekate]

34. Maybe no connection, but China would like to buy them. They'd gain access to ...

... all that up to date equipment and technology, demoralized workers, the whole shebang of the heart of American manufacturing industry.

It's a VERY chilling thought, and one reason we should make every effort to keep these industries in American hands.

It would be nice to see the CEOs in prison though.

Hekate

[leftofthedial]

43. they won't destroy the car companies, who are booming in their foreign operations

they'll just destroy nearly the last big unions in America

[JuniperLea]

50. The automakers already plan to dissemble the unions!

That is what makes this sicker than ever! They are pushing the meme that union auto workers make $75 an hour, instead of telling the truth... that the workers make in salary much less than that, and this figure is total compensation, including exorbitant health insurance.

No matter what "we" do with the American auto industry, they will push the unions out instead of doing the right thing.

[rhett o rick]

55. It's not the auto industry. When all the manufacturing jobs leave the country

their is a glut of labor. That means the price of labor will go down. To solve this problem we need to get more manufacturing jobs in America.