Death Knell for Detroit Dinosaurs
Finger-pointing begins as Senate nixes auto vote (AP)
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., holds up a print-out of a New York Times article as he testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2008, before a Financial Services Committee hearing on the automotive industry bailout. A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit’s Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers’ fate to a lame-duck Republican president.Big Three CEO's before House Financial Services Committee
by Jerry Gordon, New English Review
Senator Lieberman’s office sent a copy of the proposed auto bailout legislation that will be the subject of a Senate hearing on Wednesday (Nov. 19) and possible vote this Thursday. An AP report noted:
A Senate auto bailout bill unveiled Monday noted that 355,000 U.S. workers are directly employed by the auto industry, and an additional 4.5 million work in related industries. That doesn’t count the 1 million retirees, spouses and dependents that rely on the companies for retirement and health care benefits.
Sounds like the ‘too big to fail argument.’ Not really, when the facts are revealed.
(Continue Reading this Article)
Their fly is open.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 20, 2008 @ 2:32 am
Excellent article. Well done Jerry.
Comment by Ted Belman — November 20, 2008 @ 4:50 am
These are all very clichéd opinions - I would venture to say, “leftist-type” opinions. First these “stuffed out-moded, poor quality, gas guzzling product” were bought voluntarily by these “silly geese” customers. And still are. Some people, such as myself, actually like North American cars. From a technical standpoint, the Big Three produced some of the finest v8 and large 6-cylinder engines anywhere, and these engines lasted a long time. True, the engines could have been made more efficient earlier, but they are more efficient now; I know, because I drive one, and it’s outstanding.
As for fuel efficiency, the main criterion is vehicle weight, not type of engine. Right now there are many imports that are big, powerful, and luxurious, and these imports “guzzle gas” even more than mine does. But you don’t hear about that from the propagandists.
As for “third country” assembly of motor vehicles, that’s - in my opinion - not an option. Try buying a North American-made overcoat these days. Almost impossible, and I resent not having the choice, even if it is more expensive. My personal “philosophy” is to try to buy stuff made by my fellow North Americans, because I live in North America and my fellow citizens have to work. And if they don’t work, they won’t have an economy worth considering and these cars - even built in the “third country” will not be bought.
Oh - and by the way, North American cars are extremely cost competitive. I did some thorough investigative/comparative work and found that my car provided by far the best value for the cost.
Articles such as these - like the selling of Obama - contain glib, mostly wrong, assumptions.
Comment by keelie — November 20, 2008 @ 6:51 am
And yet, Keelie, the consumer public - worldwide, I might ad - doesn’t agree with you.
Before moving to Israel many ages ago, I had 3 American cars under my ownership. When they were repaired, they ran great, but the problem was they needed constant repairs.
Here in Israel, I have been driving Japanese cars now for 17 years straight. No headaches, rarely a visit to the mechanic. People I know here who have company cars and have gone through American, French, Italian, Czech and Japanese cars throughout the years have almost all told me that the American cars are at the bottom of the totem pole.
American automobile companies have long been complacent, with the fat cats at the top sucking in great salaries for sub-modest return. Even Saturn, which came out of the gate zooming, has lost its creative, engineering and qualitative steam over the years. They’ve always been playing catch-up and it shows.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 20, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Yes - Shy Guy,
Your argument is very viable. What I don’t like is the attitude implicit in the statement I quoted, which I believe is propagandistic (if that’s the word).
From a technical standpoint, which is my main interest, I believe that after the Arab oil embargo, the Big 3 were very wrong to immediately challenge the Japanese industry on the Japanese’s terms. The B3 were expert at building rugged everlasting big engines - great V8s - and if they had been able to think outside their complacent box, they would have immediately gone to work to increase the efficiency of these engines - for a start. Many ways to do this, as they are NOW beginning to find out. Examples are multiple-displacement (8 cyl down to 4 on the highway), fuel injection…etc. Lighter cars and engines would also have been great. Very small V8s would be great for North America, because like it or not, we drive huge distances. Then there’s diesel, or the relative lack of it… $10000 premium on diesel small-truck engines.
One major (technical) problem is that the car industry is extremely “incestuous,” so it tends to lack new paradigms. This appears to be particularly true of the B3.
I could go on, but you get the point. I don’t think bailing them out is a good idea, for many reasons (but not for vindictive reasons).
Comment by keelie — November 20, 2008 @ 6:55 pm