If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
How is giving (or lending as they say) $27 Billion to the car
companies going to help them sell vehicles?? The Feds can give Chrysler all the money in Fort Knox, I still won't buy another Chrysler product. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
"Pete E. Kruzer" wrote:
> How is giving (or lending as they say) $27 Billion to the car > companies going to help them sell vehicles?? My guess is that the auto makers desperately want to downsize or shed jobs, but that due to existing contracts they would be looking at huge payouts to shed those jobs, so at the moment it costs them less to keep unneeded people employed vs handing them a check and telling them to get lost. If the auto makers had a pile of new money dumped on them, they'd use that money to let people go, close plants, cancel supply contracts, etc etc. They would emerge with a smaller operation where their product output more closely matches market demand. > The Feds can give Chrysler all the money in Fort Knox, I still > won't buy another Chrysler product. You, like a lot of other people, probably can't afford a new car at this point, or are otherwise not in the market for a new car purchase anyways (regardless who makes it). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
this is what happens when people won't support the country they live in!
supprot it by buying it's products and instead go out and buy imports esp Hyundai's susuki's and diawoos Mitsubishi's toyota's and hondas the domestic companies have to be bailed out with tax dollars instead the real bad part is if we go into a war like ww2 or ww1 we do not have the ability to make our war equipment like we did we lose our freedom no if ands or buts if you don't believe this just look at some ww2 pics were there is factories making war equipment and you will see automotive factories making the stuff we need to keep our country on the winning side some sort of ww2 is coming it is just a matter of time esp if our oil supply is shut off and just to state a fact i now work on more imports the break than the domestics so i don't by the **** about hondas toyotas being better adn ththe import parts are 30 more in your cost i just had to replace a 02 sensor in a lexus and the freaking thing was 700.00+ just for the sensor wtf?so if we want to keep our country free we need the big three just look at the bigger picture and forget about the little **** my state has been in a recession since 04 and it's is now hitting the rest of the country with no quick end in sight so keep buying imports and help us lose our abilty to remain free if 10 people buy a import and it costs them 20 k each then add that up it comes up to 200k! that leaves our shores and you took out a loan to send that money out of the country to other contries and some of those are communist goverments! wtf then you wonder why we need to bail out companies that provide us with the standard of living we have no wonder guns sales are up 75% i had to rant MoPar Man wrote: > "Pete E. Kruzer" wrote: > > > How is giving (or lending as they say) $27 Billion to the car > > companies going to help them sell vehicles?? > > My guess is that the auto makers desperately want to downsize or shed > jobs, but that due to existing contracts they would be looking at huge > payouts to shed those jobs, so at the moment it costs them less to keep > unneeded people employed vs handing them a check and telling them to get > lost. > > If the auto makers had a pile of new money dumped on them, they'd use > that money to let people go, close plants, cancel supply contracts, etc > etc. They would emerge with a smaller operation where their product > output more closely matches market demand. > > > The Feds can give Chrysler all the money in Fort Knox, I still > > won't buy another Chrysler product. > > You, like a lot of other people, probably can't afford a new car at this > point, or are otherwise not in the market for a new car purchase anyways > (regardless who makes it). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
man of machines wrote:
> this is what happens when people won't support the country they live in! > supprot it by buying it's products and instead go out and buy imports esp > Hyundai's susuki's and diawoos > Mitsubishi's toyota's and hondas <rant snipped> Rewarding Detroit's incompetence with a bailout will only breed more incompetence and short sightedness-such as Ron Gettelfinger saying that Detroit did nothing wrong, it was the economy alone. The UAW and Rick Wagoner are in Denial (which is in the place called LaLa Land). Toyota and Honda caught the Detroit Disease and built some trucks and SUV but they hedged their bets (especially Honda) and have the wherewithall to survive-Detroit is buck naked and flat broke (both of money and solid planning). R.I.P. Detroit because of stupidity and and greed. My rant. i had to rant > > MoPar Man wrote: > >> "Pete E. Kruzer" wrote: >> >>> How is giving (or lending as they say) $27 Billion to the car >>> companies going to help them sell vehicles?? >> My guess is that the auto makers desperately want to downsize or shed >> jobs, but that due to existing contracts they would be looking at huge >> payouts to shed those jobs, so at the moment it costs them less to keep >> unneeded people employed vs handing them a check and telling them to get >> lost. >> >> If the auto makers had a pile of new money dumped on them, they'd use >> that money to let people go, close plants, cancel supply contracts, etc >> etc. They would emerge with a smaller operation where their product >> output more closely matches market demand. >> >>> The Feds can give Chrysler all the money in Fort Knox, I still >>> won't buy another Chrysler product. >> You, like a lot of other people, probably can't afford a new car at this >> point, or are otherwise not in the market for a new car purchase anyways >> (regardless who makes it). > -- Civis Romanus Sum |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
Jim Higgins wrote:
> ...buck naked... Maybe you can clear this up for me. Is it "buck naked", or is it "butt naked". I've heard it both ways. Seems it should be the latter 'cause the first doesn't make any sense. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
Bill Putney wrote:
> Jim Higgins wrote: >> ...buck naked... > > Maybe you can clear this up for me. Is it "buck naked", or is it "butt > naked". I've heard it both ways. Seems it should be the latter 'cause > the first doesn't make any sense. > Good point, see: http://ask.yahoo.com/20040927.html http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=20001005 -- Civis Romanus Sum |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
man of machines top-posted:
> this is what happens when people won't support the country they > live in! No, this is what happens when the US house and senate enact trade laws that allow foreign car makers full access to the US retail car market while US car makers don't have the same access to the foreign markets. Why not enact a trade law along the lines of - for every Korean, European or Japanese car that is driven off a ship at a US port of entry, that a US-made car must be exported to Korea, Europe or Japan? And if Korea wants to charge an import duty of, say, 15% on US cars shipped to Korea, then the US would do like-wise. Same with Europe and Japan. Level the playing field, and then let auto makers compete with each other globally. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:10:35 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>man of machines top-posted: > >> this is what happens when people won't support the country they >> live in! > >No, this is what happens when the US house and senate enact trade laws >that allow foreign car makers full access to the US retail car market >while US car makers don't have the same access to the foreign markets. > >Why not enact a trade law along the lines of - for every Korean, >European or Japanese car that is driven off a ship at a US port of >entry, that a US-made car must be exported to Korea, Europe or Japan? > >And if Korea wants to charge an import duty of, say, 15% on US cars >shipped to Korea, then the US would do like-wise. Same with Europe and >Japan. > >Level the playing field, and then let auto makers compete with each >other globally. Setting aside the issue of restrictive trade barriers for the moment, is the Korean marketplace large enough for Chrysler to build a profitable distribution network and, if so, how much would that cost? Would the return justify the investment or could this money be better spent elsewhere? More to the point, are Chrysler's products well suited to the taste and needs of these foreign markets? My sense is that if Chrysler, GM and Ford can't win the hearts and minds (and wallets) of North American car buyers, they're not likely to do much better elsewhere. Cheers, Paul |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
> > Why not enact a trade law along the lines of - for every Korean, > > European or Japanese car that is driven off a ship at a US port > > of entry, that a US-made car must be exported to Korea, Europe > > or Japan? > > Level the playing field, and then let auto makers compete with > > each other globally. > Setting aside the issue of restrictive trade barriers for the > moment, But these restrictive barriers already exist, and work against the domestic US auto makers. > is the Korean marketplace large enough for Chrysler to build a > profitable distribution network and, if so, how much would that > cost? Ok, so you're going to focus on Korea, and not Europe or Japan. If the Korean marketplace is large enough to support it's own intrinsic manufacturing, sales and distribution network for vehicles, then it's large enough to support the sales and distribution network of foreign vehicle makers. South Korean auto makers rely inordinately on foreign sales for their operations (the Jap auto makers are also relying more on US sales in recent years as domestic Jap car sales have been declining). In 2006, total SK automobile production was 5.81 million units (increase of 11.5% over 2005). Of those, 1.15 million were for domestic sale, and 4.66 million were for export. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...03_337790.html > is the Korean marketplace large enough for Chrysler to build a > profitable distribution network and, if so, how much would that > cost? There were 1.67 new vehicles (cars and trucks) sold in Canada in 2006. 52% of those were cars (868k). Of those, 1/3 or 290k cars were built overseas (presumably not built in North America). If a market that bought 290k foreign-made cars is large enough to justify foreign companies to set up sales and distribution networks, then I'd say that the Korean market (48 million, or 45% larger than Canada's population) could easily build within a few years to that level of foreign sales (assuming a level playing field). To put things into perspective, total new vehicle sales in the US in 2006 was 16.55 million (I think this is both cars and trucks). In 2007, this number dropped 3% to 16.14 million. > Would the return justify the investment or could this money be > better spent elsewhere? US auto makers would not have to outlay a lot of cash to sell into South Korea, assuming that South Korean import laws, customs and duties were equitable or on-par with US counterparts. Let individual Korean investment groups and individuals set up franchises and dealerships to sell US-made cars. That can't happen if the cars aren't being allowed to be shipped into the country in the first place. > More to the point, are Chrysler's products well suited to the > taste and needs of these foreign markets? Obviously if the foreign car makers are selling their foreign-made cars in both their own market and the US market, that there is a commonality between the "tastes and needs" of both markets. So there should be no such barrier to sales of particularly the small US-made cars in those foreign markets. > My sense is that if Chrysler, GM and Ford can't win the hearts > and minds (and wallets) of North American car buyers, they're > not likely to do much better elsewhere. The US is the dumping ground of ALL foreign car makers. Only the US allows foreign car makers complete and free access to sell their products. All other countries with a domestic auto industry protect their markets from foreign imports. Until or unless there is a level global playing field with respect to the importation and sale of foreign cars, we will never know if US-made cars would, or could sell in foreign markets to the extent necessary to change the financial bottom line of the US big-3. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bailout for the Big Three?? How will it help??
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:48:10 -0500, MoPar Man > wrote:
>"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote: > >> > Why not enact a trade law along the lines of - for every Korean, >> > European or Japanese car that is driven off a ship at a US port >> > of entry, that a US-made car must be exported to Korea, Europe >> > or Japan? > >> > Level the playing field, and then let auto makers compete with >> > each other globally. > >> Setting aside the issue of restrictive trade barriers for the >> moment, > >But these restrictive barriers already exist, and work against the >domestic US auto makers. Korea charges an 8% tariff on all U.S. vehicles. Note that the U.S. imposes its own import tarrifs on Korean autos -- 25% in the case of pickup trucks. >> is the Korean marketplace large enough for Chrysler to build a >> profitable distribution network and, if so, how much would that >> cost? > >Ok, so you're going to focus on Korea, and not Europe or Japan. My question would be relevant to all three examples you mention; there was no intention to limit my focus to Korea alone. >If the Korean marketplace is large enough to support it's own intrinsic >manufacturing, sales and distribution network for vehicles, then it's >large enough to support the sales and distribution network of foreign >vehicle makers. > >South Korean auto makers rely inordinately on foreign sales for their >operations (the Jap auto makers are also relying more on US sales in >recent years as domestic Jap car sales have been declining). > >In 2006, total SK automobile production was 5.81 million units (increase >of 11.5% over 2005). > >Of those, 1.15 million were for domestic sale, and 4.66 million were for >export. > >http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...03_337790.html > >> is the Korean marketplace large enough for Chrysler to build a >> profitable distribution network and, if so, how much would that >> cost? > >There were 1.67 new vehicles (cars and trucks) sold in Canada in 2006. >52% of those were cars (868k). Of those, 1/3 or 290k cars were built >overseas (presumably not built in North America). > >If a market that bought 290k foreign-made cars is large enough to >justify foreign companies to set up sales and distribution networks, >then I'd say that the Korean market (48 million, or 45% larger than >Canada's population) could easily build within a few years to that level >of foreign sales (assuming a level playing field). > >To put things into perspective, total new vehicle sales in the US in >2006 was 16.55 million (I think this is both cars and trucks). In 2007, >this number dropped 3% to 16.14 million. > >> Would the return justify the investment or could this money be >> better spent elsewhere? > >US auto makers would not have to outlay a lot of cash to sell into South >Korea, assuming that South Korean import laws, customs and duties were >equitable or on-par with US counterparts. Let individual Korean >investment groups and individuals set up franchises and dealerships to >sell US-made cars. That can't happen if the cars aren't being allowed >to be shipped into the country in the first place. Just so I understand this correctly, you're saying U.S. vehicles cannot be imported into Korea? >> More to the point, are Chrysler's products well suited to the >> taste and needs of these foreign markets? > >Obviously if the foreign car makers are selling their foreign-made cars >in both their own market and the US market, that there is a commonality >between the "tastes and needs" of both markets. So there should be no >such barrier to sales of particularly the small US-made cars in those >foreign markets. > >> My sense is that if Chrysler, GM and Ford can't win the hearts >> and minds (and wallets) of North American car buyers, they're >> not likely to do much better elsewhere. > >The US is the dumping ground of ALL foreign car makers. Only the US >allows foreign car makers complete and free access to sell their >products. All other countries with a domestic auto industry protect >their markets from foreign imports. > >Until or unless there is a level global playing field with respect to >the importation and sale of foreign cars, we will never know if US-made >cars would, or could sell in foreign markets to the extent necessary to >change the financial bottom line of the US big-3. Personally, I think the real issue facing Chrysler, GM and Ford is perceived value. A growing number of North American car buyers are purchasing Honda Accords, Toyota Camrys, Hyundai Sonatas and the like -- often at a sizable dollar premium -- because they believe these vehicles offer better overall value and a superior "customer experience". Price wise, in Canada, a Dodge Caliber SE equipped with a 23A Quick Order package currently retails for $13,487 CDN. A four door Hyundai Accent, if you consider this vehicle to be more or less its equivalent, starts at $14,295.00. If you equip both vehicles with automatic transmissions, that price rises to $14,787.00 and $15,295.00 respectively. As you move up the chain, the suggested retail price of a Dodge Advenger SE equipped with the 24Y package is $19,975.00 CDN. If the Hyundai Sonata is a fair match, the base GL model with automatic transmission is $23,395.00 CDN. In both cases, as you start loading on the options, the price advantage for Dodge grows wider. Is the U.S. market any different from that of Canada? Cheers, Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast | No UAW Welfare | Driving | 20 | November 17th 08 08:34 PM |
WWSD What would Sarah Palin Do? Bailout Plan | Angelocracy | Driving | 9 | September 28th 08 04:11 AM |
The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve | Jim Higgins | Chrysler | 24 | September 20th 08 02:25 PM |