Speedzzter's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/193153/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/159769-was-cash-for-clunkers-worth-it?source=feed#comment-660215 660215
> Here's another way of looking at it: CfC sold 690k cars with an average
> fuel economy improvement of 9.1mpg. Using an average annual vehicle
> mileage of 12k miles/year and $70/barrel oil*, these vehicle trade-ins
> will keep roughly $2.0B annually onshore**. Obviously, some of this
> is just pull through from sales that would have occurred without
> CfC, but it's hard to make a set of assumptions starting with that
> $2.0B figure that result in this not being a cashflow positive for
> the US economy. I very seldom defend government programs, but this
> one could have gone a whole lot worse.
>
>
> *1 barrel oil ~= 19.5 gallons gasoline (depending on heaviness of
> oil)
> ** The US imports 62% of its oil

This analysis is speculative and probably flawed:

1. The average fuel economy improvement assumed seems too high (given that less than 10% of the C4C welfare "deals" have been funded, it's premature to project the fuel economy effects. Some $3,500 "clunker" deals could have yielded minimal real fuel economy improvements).
2. Ignores that higher M.P.G. cars tend to be driven more, which reduces their net decrease in fuel consumption (Makes sense because the "opportunity cost" of driving goes down and consumers already have a "budget line" for fuel).
3. Ignores the effects on the used car market -- some of the "clunkers" would have undoubtedly went in the used car market to replace less fuel efficient older vehicles or as donors to improve the efficiency of older vehicles (i.e. "hot rods"). Now these replacements will not necessarily occur.
4. Assumption on the "clunker" miles driven may be too high. A number of the "clunkers" traded were undoubtedly seldom-driven second and third cars, while their replacements will likely become primary cars -- often for the children of the welfare voucher recipients (at least until some of the drivers tire of motoring in tiny, imported FWD deathtraps or die in crashes that would have been surviable in a larger vehicle)
5. Ignores the offshoring of perhaps as much as 50 percent of the profits, 60-70% of the fixed production and development costs, and a huge percentage of the interest on the 50% of C4C funds that were borrowed.
6. Ignores the percentage of diesel powered vehicles traded and purchased. There are only approximately 9 gallons of diesel per barrel of imported oil, so any reduction effects should be adjusted accordingly.

Clearly, there would have been more efficient ways to reduce oil imports. There is no way this program allocates resources more efficiently than the not-so-free market otherwise would have.]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:24:55 -0400
> Here's another way of looking at it: CfC sold 690k cars with an average
> fuel economy improvement of 9.1mpg. Using an average annual vehicle
> mileage of 12k miles/year and $70/barrel oil*, these vehicle trade-ins
> will keep roughly $2.0B annually onshore**. Obviously, some of this
> is just pull through from sales that would have occurred without
> CfC, but it's hard to make a set of assumptions starting with that
> $2.0B figure that result in this not being a cashflow positive for
> the US economy. I very seldom defend government programs, but this
> one could have gone a whole lot worse.
>
>
> *1 barrel oil ~= 19.5 gallons gasoline (depending on heaviness of
> oil)
> ** The US imports 62% of its oil

This analysis is speculative and probably flawed:

1. The average fuel economy improvement assumed seems too high (given that less than 10% of the C4C welfare "deals" have been funded, it's premature to project the fuel economy effects. Some $3,500 "clunker" deals could have yielded minimal real fuel economy improvements).
2. Ignores that higher M.P.G. cars tend to be driven more, which reduces their net decrease in fuel consumption (Makes sense because the "opportunity cost" of driving goes down and consumers already have a "budget line" for fuel).
3. Ignores the effects on the used car market -- some of the "clunkers" would have undoubtedly went in the used car market to replace less fuel efficient older vehicles or as donors to improve the efficiency of older vehicles (i.e. "hot rods"). Now these replacements will not necessarily occur.
4. Assumption on the "clunker" miles driven may be too high. A number of the "clunkers" traded were undoubtedly seldom-driven second and third cars, while their replacements will likely become primary cars -- often for the children of the welfare voucher recipients (at least until some of the drivers tire of motoring in tiny, imported FWD deathtraps or die in crashes that would have been surviable in a larger vehicle)
5. Ignores the offshoring of perhaps as much as 50 percent of the profits, 60-70% of the fixed production and development costs, and a huge percentage of the interest on the 50% of C4C funds that were borrowed.
6. Ignores the percentage of diesel powered vehicles traded and purchased. There are only approximately 9 gallons of diesel per barrel of imported oil, so any reduction effects should be adjusted accordingly.

Clearly, there would have been more efficient ways to reduce oil imports. There is no way this program allocates resources more efficiently than the not-so-free market otherwise would have.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159769-was-cash-for-clunkers-worth-it?source=feed#comment-660149 660149
What the cost-per-sale analyses usually fail to factor in is the debt cost. Half of the welfare money wasted buying up good used cars and destroying them was BORROWED. (Who knows if it will EVER be paid back)

When you calculate the interest cost on $1.5 Billion and spread it across the mostly foreign FWD wimpmobiles sold under the CARS program, the true cost is going to be a lot more than ~ $7,800 per unit.

Cash for clunkers was more wasteful than the infamous "$800 toilet seat" ]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:52:17 -0400
What the cost-per-sale analyses usually fail to factor in is the debt cost. Half of the welfare money wasted buying up good used cars and destroying them was BORROWED. (Who knows if it will EVER be paid back)

When you calculate the interest cost on $1.5 Billion and spread it across the mostly foreign FWD wimpmobiles sold under the CARS program, the true cost is going to be a lot more than ~ $7,800 per unit.

Cash for clunkers was more wasteful than the infamous "$800 toilet seat" ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153574-ford-takes-advantage-of-cash-for-clunkers?source=feed#comment-614517 614517
Cash for Clunkers IS "government assistance!" It's bailout money laundered through a bureaucratic welfare program.

The Orwellian newspeak "Consumer Allowance Rebate System" [sic] is a wasteful attack on the free market (and is state-sponsored vandalism of thousands of potentially collectible vehicles) funded by the printing press and money borrowed from Communist China.

MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE CARS WELFARE VOUCHERS ARE GOING FOR THE SUBSIDIZED PURCHASE OF FOREIGN BRANDED VEHICLES!

But William Clay Ford, Jr. and plenty of other dole-seeking looters will be back for more "government assistance."

"How about if Ford wants to sell [more] cars, how about they sell their cars on merit, rather than on welfare assistance."]]> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:27:00 -0400
Cash for Clunkers IS "government assistance!" It's bailout money laundered through a bureaucratic welfare program.

The Orwellian newspeak "Consumer Allowance Rebate System" [sic] is a wasteful attack on the free market (and is state-sponsored vandalism of thousands of potentially collectible vehicles) funded by the printing press and money borrowed from Communist China.

MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE CARS WELFARE VOUCHERS ARE GOING FOR THE SUBSIDIZED PURCHASE OF FOREIGN BRANDED VEHICLES!

But William Clay Ford, Jr. and plenty of other dole-seeking looters will be back for more "government assistance."

"How about if Ford wants to sell [more] cars, how about they sell their cars on merit, rather than on welfare assistance."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152376-automakers-forget-america-think-china-and-india?source=feed#comment-608224 608224
This is completely wrong.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations killed the traditional RWD station wagon and reduced market choices for sedans large enough to carry American families.

While the minivan stood in the gap for a while, public perceptions of them became that they lacked style and adventurousness. Minivans became a cliche not by any fault of the OEMs (most of which were vigorously marketing minivans)

Truck based vehicles became popular because consumers could see for themselves that they were better values. Lower CAFE standards for trucks meant that RWD and V8s could be retained and that simpler, cheaper-to-repair, more durable mechanical systems could be used. Mechanically, these trucks were similar to the large cars that CAFE had reduced the supplies and artificially inflated the prices of. Trucks also became less utilitatarian as sales pressures over four decades forced option proliferation.

Once many drivers became reaccustomed to the higher 1950s "h-point" through minivans and pickups (the higher seating position that was never abandoned in trucks) and gasoline prices stabilized, SUVs became popular because of their style, value and practicality. Since Jeep and Land Rover built the first SUVs decades ago, they've always been associated with rugged individualism, adventure, and practicality.

The SUVs of the '90s merely built upon this heritage and provided customers with an interesting and exciting vehicle with the functionality of old, CAFE-killed station wagons at price points that were more attractive than cramped FWD sedans and boring minivans. As trucks and SUVs proliferated, many bought them merely to stay "competitive" with their neighbors and/or for enhanced visibility.

Advertising actually had little to do with it. Word-of-mouth, direct personal experience, and social imitation was much more important. Obviously, if Detroit advertising could work such miracles, Detroit could have pushed the Japanese back into the sea long ago. Consumers are smarter than that.
]]> Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:26:08 -0400
This is completely wrong.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations killed the traditional RWD station wagon and reduced market choices for sedans large enough to carry American families.

While the minivan stood in the gap for a while, public perceptions of them became that they lacked style and adventurousness. Minivans became a cliche not by any fault of the OEMs (most of which were vigorously marketing minivans)

Truck based vehicles became popular because consumers could see for themselves that they were better values. Lower CAFE standards for trucks meant that RWD and V8s could be retained and that simpler, cheaper-to-repair, more durable mechanical systems could be used. Mechanically, these trucks were similar to the large cars that CAFE had reduced the supplies and artificially inflated the prices of. Trucks also became less utilitatarian as sales pressures over four decades forced option proliferation.

Once many drivers became reaccustomed to the higher 1950s "h-point" through minivans and pickups (the higher seating position that was never abandoned in trucks) and gasoline prices stabilized, SUVs became popular because of their style, value and practicality. Since Jeep and Land Rover built the first SUVs decades ago, they've always been associated with rugged individualism, adventure, and practicality.

The SUVs of the '90s merely built upon this heritage and provided customers with an interesting and exciting vehicle with the functionality of old, CAFE-killed station wagons at price points that were more attractive than cramped FWD sedans and boring minivans. As trucks and SUVs proliferated, many bought them merely to stay "competitive" with their neighbors and/or for enhanced visibility.

Advertising actually had little to do with it. Word-of-mouth, direct personal experience, and social imitation was much more important. Obviously, if Detroit advertising could work such miracles, Detroit could have pushed the Japanese back into the sea long ago. Consumers are smarter than that.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152510-car-allowance-rebate-system-ford-bounces-back?source=feed#comment-608138 608138
It's laundered bailout money. It's another abandonment of free market principles. It's still borrowing money we don't have to redistribute it to people who haven't earned it. It's still the pillaging and vandalism of thousands of potential collector and parts vehicles built after 1984. It's still a war on V8s and against grassroots motorsports (which depend on the sorts of "clunkers" that Welfare/Beer Bust King Obama, the environmentalists and the greedy public dole sucklings are destroying).

Ford vigorously campaigned for the CARS legislation, so they ARE benefitting from "bailout" money (i.e. Dealers get the CARS welfare vouchers they then spend to help buy the vehicles from Ford -- only the most myopic can't see that this is "bailout" cash to Ford)

A note for ThomasC: It is undisputable that the labor costs (including legacy costs) of the foreign "invader" assembly plants were far below the Detroit 3 before this crisis. How could UAW-assembled vehicles be competitive with "scab" vehicles assembled in "right to work" states for $1,000-$1,500 less per unit?

Regardless of one's position on the value of unions, the UAW clearly did not put the Detroit 3 on a level playing field with the invaders. The UAW failed to unionize the invaders. Nor did the UAW convince the American public to shun non-union "transplant" vehicles.

The invaders thus set the "market price" for assembly labor and benefits. The pre-crisis UAW "pattern" contracts exceeded the market price for assembly labor. Moreover, it's been widely reported that UAW work rules also put the Detroit 3 at a considerable disadvantage to the "Japanese" way. You may not like these facts, but they are the harsh reality. ]]> Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:51:29 -0400
It's laundered bailout money. It's another abandonment of free market principles. It's still borrowing money we don't have to redistribute it to people who haven't earned it. It's still the pillaging and vandalism of thousands of potential collector and parts vehicles built after 1984. It's still a war on V8s and against grassroots motorsports (which depend on the sorts of "clunkers" that Welfare/Beer Bust King Obama, the environmentalists and the greedy public dole sucklings are destroying).

Ford vigorously campaigned for the CARS legislation, so they ARE benefitting from "bailout" money (i.e. Dealers get the CARS welfare vouchers they then spend to help buy the vehicles from Ford -- only the most myopic can't see that this is "bailout" cash to Ford)

A note for ThomasC: It is undisputable that the labor costs (including legacy costs) of the foreign "invader" assembly plants were far below the Detroit 3 before this crisis. How could UAW-assembled vehicles be competitive with "scab" vehicles assembled in "right to work" states for $1,000-$1,500 less per unit?

Regardless of one's position on the value of unions, the UAW clearly did not put the Detroit 3 on a level playing field with the invaders. The UAW failed to unionize the invaders. Nor did the UAW convince the American public to shun non-union "transplant" vehicles.

The invaders thus set the "market price" for assembly labor and benefits. The pre-crisis UAW "pattern" contracts exceeded the market price for assembly labor. Moreover, it's been widely reported that UAW work rules also put the Detroit 3 at a considerable disadvantage to the "Japanese" way. You may not like these facts, but they are the harsh reality. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147296-i-was-wrong-about-gm-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-579385 579385
Actually, its the folks working at the car wash who were more likely to vote for the current administration and who will have few objections to government ownership and greater receptivity to "bailouts" and other forms of welfare subsidies.

A fair number of regular and loyal Detroit 3 buyers (many of which did not vote for Obama and and who tend to be disproportionately among the upper middle and upper classes) are objectors. If only a plurality of these regular customers abandon GM or Chrysler in the current depressed market, it may have measurable effects on the recovery of these automakers.

To be sure, some of the "I'll never buy another GM car" talk from some Republicans and independents is overblown. But some of these customers really mean it. Add on the dealer terminations, which may degrade customer loyalty in some smaller and rural markets (e.g. not as many small GM and Chrysler dealers selling to their friends and neighbors at the small town country clubs, little league, and "chamber of commerce" meetings), and its clear that a potential image problem looms.

Marketers know that purchasing decisions involving vehicles are not completely rational. Emotions, brand image and other subjective perceptions play material roles in the retailing calculus. Thus, while talk of "boycotts" strikes some GM and Chrysler fan boys as irrational and "childish," it is unreasonable to expect that all or even most of GM and Chrysler's former customers will ignore the extraordinary linkage between these companies, the federal government, and the future political fortunes of the Democrats. ]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:02:56 -0400
Actually, its the folks working at the car wash who were more likely to vote for the current administration and who will have few objections to government ownership and greater receptivity to "bailouts" and other forms of welfare subsidies.

A fair number of regular and loyal Detroit 3 buyers (many of which did not vote for Obama and and who tend to be disproportionately among the upper middle and upper classes) are objectors. If only a plurality of these regular customers abandon GM or Chrysler in the current depressed market, it may have measurable effects on the recovery of these automakers.

To be sure, some of the "I'll never buy another GM car" talk from some Republicans and independents is overblown. But some of these customers really mean it. Add on the dealer terminations, which may degrade customer loyalty in some smaller and rural markets (e.g. not as many small GM and Chrysler dealers selling to their friends and neighbors at the small town country clubs, little league, and "chamber of commerce" meetings), and its clear that a potential image problem looms.

Marketers know that purchasing decisions involving vehicles are not completely rational. Emotions, brand image and other subjective perceptions play material roles in the retailing calculus. Thus, while talk of "boycotts" strikes some GM and Chrysler fan boys as irrational and "childish," it is unreasonable to expect that all or even most of GM and Chrysler's former customers will ignore the extraordinary linkage between these companies, the federal government, and the future political fortunes of the Democrats. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147296-i-was-wrong-about-gm-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-576891 576891
Now GM and Chrysler are viewed by perhaps as many as thirty percent of potential customers as clients of big labor and the Democrats. GM and Chrysler will have a difficult time luring these conservative "conscientious objectors" back into the fold. ]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:22:09 -0400
Now GM and Chrysler are viewed by perhaps as many as thirty percent of potential customers as clients of big labor and the Democrats. GM and Chrysler will have a difficult time luring these conservative "conscientious objectors" back into the fold. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147226-chrysler-models-already-on-the-chopping-block?source=feed#comment-576411 576411
Of course the problem for Chrysler (other than the universal cash flow problems of the current automotive depression, the taints of bankruptcy and foreign/UAW ownership, niggling quality concerns, and the massive compliance costs created by President Obama's acceleration of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards) is hanging on until any FIAT platforms are available. ]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:04:34 -0400
Of course the problem for Chrysler (other than the universal cash flow problems of the current automotive depression, the taints of bankruptcy and foreign/UAW ownership, niggling quality concerns, and the massive compliance costs created by President Obama's acceleration of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards) is hanging on until any FIAT platforms are available. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/143969-good-auto-news-chrysler-restarts-production-ford-confirms-profit-plans?source=feed#comment-552311 552311
More than likely there's a backlog of orders for Vipers, anticipating that the model and the plant that builds it will be short-lived.

Of course, limited production Vipers ought to be nearly pure profit machines for "FIAT-C Group" and they need to get busy building as many as current CAFE averages will allow before the 2012-2016 CAFE hikes kill off the 600+ h.p. sports car niche forever. ]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:32:50 -0400
More than likely there's a backlog of orders for Vipers, anticipating that the model and the plant that builds it will be short-lived.

Of course, limited production Vipers ought to be nearly pure profit machines for "FIAT-C Group" and they need to get busy building as many as current CAFE averages will allow before the 2012-2016 CAFE hikes kill off the 600+ h.p. sports car niche forever. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139726-foreign-carmakers-more-domestic-than-detroit-s-big-three?source=feed#comment-519460 519460
But with respect to the narrow measure of assembly, Ford is poised to assume the honor of building more vehicles in America than anyone else (and but for the arcane and obsolete "two fleets" CAFE rule, undoubtedly even more vehicles would have been built here).

"Ford . . . will rank first in 2009 with 1.9 million units, according to data from forecasting group IHS Global Insight, which released its North American light-vehicle production forecast this month."

"GM . . . is idling most of its plants over the next couple of months and will produce an estimated 1.7 million vehicles this year" which is good enough for second place.

What about predatory foreign invaders like Honda and Toyota? PLEASE! They'll still be behind Chrysler (which is in the midst of a total production shut-down during its bankruptcy) when the 2009 counting is done. And the domestic content of Honda and Toyota still lags far behind the Detroit 3.

"[A]mong the most popular U.S.-built cars and trucks, the models with the highest domestic content ratings come from Detroit automakers. Of the 35 most popular U.S.-built 2008 and 2009 models — based on sales through May 31, 2008 — 43 percent of GM, Ford and Chrysler contenders had domestic content ratings of 75 percent or higher. In comparison, just 25 percent of the Nissan, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota models on the list achieved that."

Ford is quietly emerging out of the Obamanomics chaos as the only true AMERICAN CHOICE.]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 10:26:12 -0400
But with respect to the narrow measure of assembly, Ford is poised to assume the honor of building more vehicles in America than anyone else (and but for the arcane and obsolete "two fleets" CAFE rule, undoubtedly even more vehicles would have been built here).

"Ford . . . will rank first in 2009 with 1.9 million units, according to data from forecasting group IHS Global Insight, which released its North American light-vehicle production forecast this month."

"GM . . . is idling most of its plants over the next couple of months and will produce an estimated 1.7 million vehicles this year" which is good enough for second place.

What about predatory foreign invaders like Honda and Toyota? PLEASE! They'll still be behind Chrysler (which is in the midst of a total production shut-down during its bankruptcy) when the 2009 counting is done. And the domestic content of Honda and Toyota still lags far behind the Detroit 3.

"[A]mong the most popular U.S.-built cars and trucks, the models with the highest domestic content ratings come from Detroit automakers. Of the 35 most popular U.S.-built 2008 and 2009 models — based on sales through May 31, 2008 — 43 percent of GM, Ford and Chrysler contenders had domestic content ratings of 75 percent or higher. In comparison, just 25 percent of the Nissan, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota models on the list achieved that."

Ford is quietly emerging out of the Obamanomics chaos as the only true AMERICAN CHOICE.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/138552-obama-s-sweeping-changes-for-america-s-cars?source=feed#comment-511262 511262
* * * *
Of course, it doesn't take a Harvard-trained physicist to figure out that: (a) weight and fuel economy are inextricably linked; and (b) smaller and lighter loses out every time to bigger and heavier. The pre-Obama CAFE was a proven killer. Now the Obamanator and the "Governator" have just made it even worse.

However, the mere mention of hiked fuel economy standards and more "hamburger on the highway" was enough to cause the granola-eating, all-natural-fiber high priests of the environmental left to kowtow Obama into sacking his initial nominee to lead the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,Charles "Chuck" Hurley.

(However, sporting motorists were hardly sorry to see "MADD Chuck" go, given that he was poised to be the Obama Administration's stalking horse for a return of the 55 m.p.h. national speed limit)

FoMoCo's face of appliance motoring (other than William Clay Ford, Jr.), Vice President for Environment and Safety, Sue Cischke weighed in with the obvious:

When regulations establish requirements on what people buy, not what we make, if people aren't buying those, we have to offer incentives . . .We can't force people to buy what they don't want to buy.

We already know FoMoCo's favorite incentive is a draconian federal fuel tax . . .

Cischke also gave a clue about the butchering up of the next generation Mustang:

"Though it'll be expensive, Ford's Cischke says, a lighter car can be made as safe as a heavier car."

Even before the new regulation, Ford Motor was planning on 'taking between 250 and 750 pounds from (each of) our vehicles. That's a huge challenge,' she says."

"'It's all about managing the energy, protecting the crash cage,' she says. 'There are ways you can design a vehicle to be very strong, to provide the same crash safety as a heavier one.'"

Although anyone familiar with NASCAR racing knows that a "cage" can provide remarkable strength-to-weight and protection, the cost and the inconvenience is enormous. Thus, "taking between 250 and 750 pounds" out of the Mustang without using cost prohibitive methods, such as aluminum unibodies and carbon fiber, while at the same time beefing up the "cage" MEANS DOWNSIZING, CANNING THE V8s, AND FRONT WHEEL DRIVE.

If that happens, most Mustangers probably won't care if the ObamaMobile FWD "Mustang IIs" aren't as safe, because they'll be so depressed at the death of the "real" Mustang (V8 & RWD) that they'll WISH THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD!

Across-the-board downsizing is virtually a certainty in the lower-priced ranks because it does no good to build rolling high-tech fortresses of carbon fiber, magnesium, aluminum and dozens of airbags if regular wage earners cannot afford to buy them.

The $1,300.00-per-vehicle average price "tax" that will be extracted from new vehicle buyers to cover the fuel economy technology doesn't take into account the hidden costs of the Obamanator CAFE hike, such as higher insurance premiums that will be required to cover increased personal injury payouts, lost productivity, and manifold pain and suffering that will occur when the ObamaMobile hybrid minicars collide with working trucks or vintage vehicles that survive the Billy Ford and the Democrats' war on historic vehicles (a/k/a "Cash for Clunkers").

But as the highway carnage inevitably rises with the downsizing of the fleet, the radical Obamamaniacs and the freedom-hating EnviroNazis will certainly be waiting in the wings with the final piece of 1970s greeniac nostalgia: The federal 55 m.p.h. speed limit. ]]> Wed, 20 May 2009 10:47:06 -0400
* * * *
Of course, it doesn't take a Harvard-trained physicist to figure out that: (a) weight and fuel economy are inextricably linked; and (b) smaller and lighter loses out every time to bigger and heavier. The pre-Obama CAFE was a proven killer. Now the Obamanator and the "Governator" have just made it even worse.

However, the mere mention of hiked fuel economy standards and more "hamburger on the highway" was enough to cause the granola-eating, all-natural-fiber high priests of the environmental left to kowtow Obama into sacking his initial nominee to lead the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,Charles "Chuck" Hurley.

(However, sporting motorists were hardly sorry to see "MADD Chuck" go, given that he was poised to be the Obama Administration's stalking horse for a return of the 55 m.p.h. national speed limit)

FoMoCo's face of appliance motoring (other than William Clay Ford, Jr.), Vice President for Environment and Safety, Sue Cischke weighed in with the obvious:

When regulations establish requirements on what people buy, not what we make, if people aren't buying those, we have to offer incentives . . .We can't force people to buy what they don't want to buy.

We already know FoMoCo's favorite incentive is a draconian federal fuel tax . . .

Cischke also gave a clue about the butchering up of the next generation Mustang:

"Though it'll be expensive, Ford's Cischke says, a lighter car can be made as safe as a heavier car."

Even before the new regulation, Ford Motor was planning on 'taking between 250 and 750 pounds from (each of) our vehicles. That's a huge challenge,' she says."

"'It's all about managing the energy, protecting the crash cage,' she says. 'There are ways you can design a vehicle to be very strong, to provide the same crash safety as a heavier one.'"

Although anyone familiar with NASCAR racing knows that a "cage" can provide remarkable strength-to-weight and protection, the cost and the inconvenience is enormous. Thus, "taking between 250 and 750 pounds" out of the Mustang without using cost prohibitive methods, such as aluminum unibodies and carbon fiber, while at the same time beefing up the "cage" MEANS DOWNSIZING, CANNING THE V8s, AND FRONT WHEEL DRIVE.

If that happens, most Mustangers probably won't care if the ObamaMobile FWD "Mustang IIs" aren't as safe, because they'll be so depressed at the death of the "real" Mustang (V8 & RWD) that they'll WISH THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD!

Across-the-board downsizing is virtually a certainty in the lower-priced ranks because it does no good to build rolling high-tech fortresses of carbon fiber, magnesium, aluminum and dozens of airbags if regular wage earners cannot afford to buy them.

The $1,300.00-per-vehicle average price "tax" that will be extracted from new vehicle buyers to cover the fuel economy technology doesn't take into account the hidden costs of the Obamanator CAFE hike, such as higher insurance premiums that will be required to cover increased personal injury payouts, lost productivity, and manifold pain and suffering that will occur when the ObamaMobile hybrid minicars collide with working trucks or vintage vehicles that survive the Billy Ford and the Democrats' war on historic vehicles (a/k/a "Cash for Clunkers").

But as the highway carnage inevitably rises with the downsizing of the fleet, the radical Obamamaniacs and the freedom-hating EnviroNazis will certainly be waiting in the wings with the final piece of 1970s greeniac nostalgia: The federal 55 m.p.h. speed limit. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/138440-obama-s-new-mileage-standards-let-s-wait-and-see-how-the-final-rules-shake-out?source=feed#comment-509490 509490
The average cost of compliance to be passed along to consumers is $1,300.00 per vehicle. Which means that for low-volume sporting and high-performance vehicles, the cost of compliance will be $5,000.00-$10,000.00 or more. Moreover, volume limitations inherent in an "average" will mean that OEM and dealer gouging will be rampant for anything that remotely resembles a "performance" car.

The liberty of regular wage-earners to purchase a large SUV or a high performance car is being regulated away.

Under the quick proposed time-frame, V8 muscle cars are most certainly going to be slaughtered in the headlong rush to build soulless, happy, smiley FWD Obamamobiles that are acceptable the appliance motorist greeniacs and their steroid-addled RINO lap-dog, California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Detroit, humiliated, humbled and beholden to corporate welfare will meekly comply, mostly out of the horror that could have arisen had the 9th Circuit and the soon-to-be Obama-ized Supreme Court had permitted the Peoples' Republic of California and thirteen other freedom-hating fellow-traveler police states to set their own fuel economy standards.

Thus, the long, gloomy nightmare that will be a redux of the 1970s, albeit about ten times more expensive and repressive this time, has now been assured.

For some of us, the EnviroNazis will get our "antique" V8s only as they pry the pistol-grip shifters out of our cold-dead hands. We are too old to wait out this long, dark, repressive nightmare. They may crush our collector cars and our bank accounts, but the power-mad looter vermin in charge will never crush our spirit and our resourcefullness.

Others, someday, may anticipate a new birth of vehicular freedom. Whether it occurs is up to a number daunting factors, such as advancements in alternative fuel technology, geopolitics and whether a sufficient number of courageous, freedom-loving voters can overthrow this approaching midnight of our discontent.

To say "see, I told you so" would be accurate, but it would not be helpful. We must fight in the short term to preserve as much of our automotive history as possible and in the long term to recover as much of it as we dare.

While the smokey, back-room Obama-Schwartzenegger-... power grab will dissuade millions of casual automobile enthusiasts from any defiance (mostly because pre-packaged muscle and sports cars will soon become neutered, sanitized, homogenized, and priced out-of-reach), a defiant core of resourceful believers in vehicular freedom and self-determination will reject the compromised, store-bought motoring appliances and hack together "freedom machines" that send but one unmistakable message to those who would attempt to crush our liberty and our dreams.

While the going will become much tougher and the way less traveled, rest assured that some of us will keep on keeping on, if only to gouge the eyes of the "Governator," the Obama-nator, and other pansies of motoring.]]> Tue, 19 May 2009 09:44:18 -0400
The average cost of compliance to be passed along to consumers is $1,300.00 per vehicle. Which means that for low-volume sporting and high-performance vehicles, the cost of compliance will be $5,000.00-$10,000.00 or more. Moreover, volume limitations inherent in an "average" will mean that OEM and dealer gouging will be rampant for anything that remotely resembles a "performance" car.

The liberty of regular wage-earners to purchase a large SUV or a high performance car is being regulated away.

Under the quick proposed time-frame, V8 muscle cars are most certainly going to be slaughtered in the headlong rush to build soulless, happy, smiley FWD Obamamobiles that are acceptable the appliance motorist greeniacs and their steroid-addled RINO lap-dog, California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Detroit, humiliated, humbled and beholden to corporate welfare will meekly comply, mostly out of the horror that could have arisen had the 9th Circuit and the soon-to-be Obama-ized Supreme Court had permitted the Peoples' Republic of California and thirteen other freedom-hating fellow-traveler police states to set their own fuel economy standards.

Thus, the long, gloomy nightmare that will be a redux of the 1970s, albeit about ten times more expensive and repressive this time, has now been assured.

For some of us, the EnviroNazis will get our "antique" V8s only as they pry the pistol-grip shifters out of our cold-dead hands. We are too old to wait out this long, dark, repressive nightmare. They may crush our collector cars and our bank accounts, but the power-mad looter vermin in charge will never crush our spirit and our resourcefullness.

Others, someday, may anticipate a new birth of vehicular freedom. Whether it occurs is up to a number daunting factors, such as advancements in alternative fuel technology, geopolitics and whether a sufficient number of courageous, freedom-loving voters can overthrow this approaching midnight of our discontent.

To say "see, I told you so" would be accurate, but it would not be helpful. We must fight in the short term to preserve as much of our automotive history as possible and in the long term to recover as much of it as we dare.

While the smokey, back-room Obama-Schwartzenegger-... power grab will dissuade millions of casual automobile enthusiasts from any defiance (mostly because pre-packaged muscle and sports cars will soon become neutered, sanitized, homogenized, and priced out-of-reach), a defiant core of resourceful believers in vehicular freedom and self-determination will reject the compromised, store-bought motoring appliances and hack together "freedom machines" that send but one unmistakable message to those who would attempt to crush our liberty and our dreams.

While the going will become much tougher and the way less traveled, rest assured that some of us will keep on keeping on, if only to gouge the eyes of the "Governator," the Obama-nator, and other pansies of motoring.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137542-gm-and-china-what-are-they-thinking?source=feed#comment-503553 503553
However, from a strictly political standpoint, it's outrageously tone-deaf.

Moreover, while it's somewhat speculative that Americans will immediately rush in to buy Communist Chinese-made "Buicks" and "Chevrolets." It does, however, lay the foundations for Chinese domination of the U.S. light vehicle market in 15-20 years, as GM teaches the CHI-COMS all about U.S. regulatory compliance and breaks down nationalist/political resistance to Chinese vehicles. A collaborator makes that process much easier. Once that happens, the Chinese will take advantage of the grossly undervalued yuan (based on purchasing power parity analysis) and virtual slave labor to blow everyone else out of the low and low-middle ends of the market.

What was it that Vladmir Ilyich Lenin said? . . . "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." Apparently GM and the Democratic Obama Administration want to be in the "rope selling" business. While U.A.W. complaining may extract a few concessions and some featherbedding, don’t look for anyone in the federal government to nip this threat in the bud. We’re simply too dependant upon CHI-COM purchases of U.S. debt and too beholden to multi- nationalist ideology.

Besides, if GM doesn’t do it, somebody else most assuredly will. ]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 10:14:16 -0400
However, from a strictly political standpoint, it's outrageously tone-deaf.

Moreover, while it's somewhat speculative that Americans will immediately rush in to buy Communist Chinese-made "Buicks" and "Chevrolets." It does, however, lay the foundations for Chinese domination of the U.S. light vehicle market in 15-20 years, as GM teaches the CHI-COMS all about U.S. regulatory compliance and breaks down nationalist/political resistance to Chinese vehicles. A collaborator makes that process much easier. Once that happens, the Chinese will take advantage of the grossly undervalued yuan (based on purchasing power parity analysis) and virtual slave labor to blow everyone else out of the low and low-middle ends of the market.

What was it that Vladmir Ilyich Lenin said? . . . "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." Apparently GM and the Democratic Obama Administration want to be in the "rope selling" business. While U.A.W. complaining may extract a few concessions and some featherbedding, don’t look for anyone in the federal government to nip this threat in the bud. We’re simply too dependant upon CHI-COM purchases of U.S. debt and too beholden to multi- nationalist ideology.

Besides, if GM doesn’t do it, somebody else most assuredly will. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137226-ford-will-mulally-be-able-to-continue-his-masterful-job?source=feed#comment-500753 500753
Will appliance motorist Americans pay more for value-added, European-quality small cars, or will they abandon American cars in increasing numbers for cheaper soulless Asian “commodity” sleds?

Will possible nationalization of GMAC give “Government Motors” and FIAT-Chrysler a huge advantage in financing?

Will the U.A.W.’s plea to “turn off lights in Tokyo and Seoul” end up in a trade war?

Will the $7,800,000,000.00 loss by the Evil Empire (Toyota) awaken them to a new round of brutal predatory moves?

Are we in for a “lost decade” of stagflation and constrained credit?

Will Ford’s bloated and greedy dealer network offset advances in product?

Has Ford’s failure to adequately tend the youth market for a generation written off millions of vehicle purchasers for a lifetime?

Will Ford’s myopic shilling for a “Cash for Clunkers” bailout alienate vintage vehicle collectors, hot rodders, and enthusiasts?

Will the import-centric automotive press give Ford’s new products a fair shake?

Are these outside forces “too tough to tame?”

It is alarming that according to some estimates, Ford only stands to gain one in every four sales lost by GM and Chrysler. Losing seventy-five percent of the “conquest” sales to the import invaders is even worse than Ford’s disappointing record against the Hendrick Chevrolet juggernaut. It is emblematic of Ford’s decades of uncompetitiveness in certain market niches and the built-up brand capital of the predatory invaders.

Thus far, Mulally’s sold a lot of chair shuffling, reductions-in-force, and blue sky futurism. While thankfully Ford is not in as bad of shape as its crosstown rivals (much because of Mulally’s cash-conserving/mortga... instincts), it is not clear whether Ford’s next generation of value-added cars will reverse the flow of red ink.

However, if the current Mustang/Camaro/Challenger and Hendrick/Roush-Fenway battles are any indication, Ford still may not have learned how to throw a knockout punch. Or dominate. Or cross the finish line first when conditions are “too tough to tame.”]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 13:41:42 -0400
Will appliance motorist Americans pay more for value-added, European-quality small cars, or will they abandon American cars in increasing numbers for cheaper soulless Asian “commodity” sleds?

Will possible nationalization of GMAC give “Government Motors” and FIAT-Chrysler a huge advantage in financing?

Will the U.A.W.’s plea to “turn off lights in Tokyo and Seoul” end up in a trade war?

Will the $7,800,000,000.00 loss by the Evil Empire (Toyota) awaken them to a new round of brutal predatory moves?

Are we in for a “lost decade” of stagflation and constrained credit?

Will Ford’s bloated and greedy dealer network offset advances in product?

Has Ford’s failure to adequately tend the youth market for a generation written off millions of vehicle purchasers for a lifetime?

Will Ford’s myopic shilling for a “Cash for Clunkers” bailout alienate vintage vehicle collectors, hot rodders, and enthusiasts?

Will the import-centric automotive press give Ford’s new products a fair shake?

Are these outside forces “too tough to tame?”

It is alarming that according to some estimates, Ford only stands to gain one in every four sales lost by GM and Chrysler. Losing seventy-five percent of the “conquest” sales to the import invaders is even worse than Ford’s disappointing record against the Hendrick Chevrolet juggernaut. It is emblematic of Ford’s decades of uncompetitiveness in certain market niches and the built-up brand capital of the predatory invaders.

Thus far, Mulally’s sold a lot of chair shuffling, reductions-in-force, and blue sky futurism. While thankfully Ford is not in as bad of shape as its crosstown rivals (much because of Mulally’s cash-conserving/mortga... instincts), it is not clear whether Ford’s next generation of value-added cars will reverse the flow of red ink.

However, if the current Mustang/Camaro/Challenger and Hendrick/Roush-Fenway battles are any indication, Ford still may not have learned how to throw a knockout punch. Or dominate. Or cross the finish line first when conditions are “too tough to tame.”]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136153-feeling-the-buzz-ford-goes-electric?source=feed#comment-494495 494495
On the other hand, building small cars in America is one of Ford's few potential strategic advantages. Even if the next-gen Focus is not profitable under the UAW-Obama-Radical Green captivity of Ford's microeconomics, it is necessary because of the "two fleets" rule to offset the sorts of larger and high-performance vehicles consumers really want and need.

It is also good business as an active counter to the backlash against perceptions of a predatory Asian invasion of the U.S. auto market (As quality American jobs become more scarce and unstable, it is inevitable that some consumers will turn more "nationalistic" in their durable goods purchases out of a feeling that we're losing too many "good" jobs overseas. Purchase of an "all-American" vehicle instead of an import or "invader"/transplant will seem to many as a symbolic show of support for the American economy and America's industrial future)

It's also a necessary hedge for opposing unreasonable regulatory adjustments of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Pressure from the courts, California, and Obama's environmental constituents will be to jack fuel economy averages to as much as 40 m.p.g. or more. Ford has to at least try to build and sell small cars in the U.S.A. before it can credibly argue future regulatory increases in these standards are wildly unrealistic. Increasing the U.A.W.'s stake in this debate is brilliant.

Finally, it fits with the "touchy-feely" corporate narrative that FoMoCo is pushing at the present time. (See the Ford Story website) While most of the profits may still come from the working (e.g. trucks) and fun (high performance/sporty) sides of the business, Ford needs a strong smokescreen of "Good Green Global Citizen" claptrap to placate politicians, activist shareholders, special interest groups, and certain members of the Ford family. ]]> Thu, 07 May 2009 16:11:32 -0400
On the other hand, building small cars in America is one of Ford's few potential strategic advantages. Even if the next-gen Focus is not profitable under the UAW-Obama-Radical Green captivity of Ford's microeconomics, it is necessary because of the "two fleets" rule to offset the sorts of larger and high-performance vehicles consumers really want and need.

It is also good business as an active counter to the backlash against perceptions of a predatory Asian invasion of the U.S. auto market (As quality American jobs become more scarce and unstable, it is inevitable that some consumers will turn more "nationalistic" in their durable goods purchases out of a feeling that we're losing too many "good" jobs overseas. Purchase of an "all-American" vehicle instead of an import or "invader"/transplant will seem to many as a symbolic show of support for the American economy and America's industrial future)

It's also a necessary hedge for opposing unreasonable regulatory adjustments of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Pressure from the courts, California, and Obama's environmental constituents will be to jack fuel economy averages to as much as 40 m.p.g. or more. Ford has to at least try to build and sell small cars in the U.S.A. before it can credibly argue future regulatory increases in these standards are wildly unrealistic. Increasing the U.A.W.'s stake in this debate is brilliant.

Finally, it fits with the "touchy-feely" corporate narrative that FoMoCo is pushing at the present time. (See the Ford Story website) While most of the profits may still come from the working (e.g. trucks) and fun (high performance/sporty) sides of the business, Ford needs a strong smokescreen of "Good Green Global Citizen" claptrap to placate politicians, activist shareholders, special interest groups, and certain members of the Ford family. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128960-five-reasons-to-say-yes-to-american-cars?source=feed#comment-448310 448310 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:23:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128958-five-reasons-not-to-buy-american-cars?source=feed#comment-448292 448292
Newman apparently believes that we all should just cooperate with the Japanese invasion/takeover of our MOST BASIC INDUSTRY -- the industry that was the backbone of our military triumph over the godless, fascist agressors from Japan.

If we were going to give Japan the keys to the city, why didn't we just surrender in 1941?

In addition to the brilliant reasons posted earlier, here's five more reasons NEVER TO BUY A SINGLE THING FROM A JAPANESE AUTO COMPANY.

1. Protectionism -- Japan's car makers incubated in protectionist climate which prevented the Detroit 3 from making more than token investments in Japanese OEMs or selling cars in their market.

2. Predatory Business Model -- Japan's car makers were only profitable because of exports, which created huge trade deficits.

3. Lack of Domestic Content -- Just because a Japanese invader car is assembled by non-union labor in the U.S. doesn't mean the parts come from here. American cars support hundreds of thousands more OEM parts supplier jobs than do the invading Japanese transplants.

4. Lack of soul -- excluding a handful of limited-production sports models, Japanese vehicles have all of the driving panache and "soul" of a refrigerator. Buying a Japanese sedan is like wearing a $20-80,000 badge proclaiming that "I'm a self-centered weasel who wouldn't know an exciting car if it ran over me."

5. Government Subsidies -- According to Toyota-ex Jim Press, the Japanese government virtually paid for all of the electric hybrid technology that the tree huggers are ramming down our throats. And its well documented that the Japanese government has provided scads of subsidies and incentives for Japan's invasion of the U.S. auto market.

6. (Just like Joe Isuzu, I lied -- there are more reasons not to send anymore American money to Tokyo)

Buying Japanese deprives the Detroit 3 and their suppliers of necessary investment capital.

7. Bataan Death March.

8. Battle of Midway.

9. Iwo Jima.

10. Guadalcanal

11. Battle of Leyte Gulf

12. Saipan

13. Battle of the Java Sea

14. Kamikazes (not the drink)

15. Nanking Massacre (300,000 Chinese People Killed, 20,000 Women Raped)

16. Causes thousands of quality U.S. jobs to be outsourced to Asia.

17. Destroys many American communities who depend on manufacturing.

18. Subsidizes the pagan, sexist, and zenophobic Japanese culture.

19. Increases the trade deficit.

20. Hurts the value of the U.S. Dollar

21. Multiplier effect (dollars staying in the U.S. will keep circulating in the U.S. economy, creating more jobs and improving the standards of living)

22. National pride -- Let's act like AMERICANS!

23. There are plenty of excellent vehicles sold by Detroit (don't buy into the sycophantic pro-Japan bias of the elite media and the self-selected, methodologically-invalid "Consumer Distorts" surveys.

24. Your grandchildren -- you won't have to look them in the eye and explain why you selfishly helped bankrupt the U.S. auto industry.

25. The Japanese are apparently incapable of making a Mustang or a Shelby GT500, or a Corvette, or a "real" Challenger, or any legitimate performance car that isn't festooned with a hideous "body kit" and/or a stupid "boy racer" wing.

26. When left to their own devices, Japanese styling is "Tokyo-at-night" terrible. The bland exceptions to this rule are from Western collaborators. Thus, if we give the auto business over to the Japanese, we'll get more bland and hideous vehicles.

27. Safety. For example, Toyota trucks have been recalled for fatal steering, brake and airbag defects. Thousands have been killed in undersized, understructured Japanese cars over the years (just look at how some of them fold up like a cheap suit when crashed). Toyota has been sued over the defective seat belts and deadly door latches of its Corolla models. And this is just the tip of the safety iceberg.

28. Repair costs. When they do break down (and they're machines, they all do -- have you ever seen a Japanese traitor/invader dealership without a service department?), Japanese cars are horrendously expensive to repair. One study found that building a typical $20,000 Japanese car out of replacement parts would cost $60,000 (excluding labor, of course). And when was the last time you saw a 20+ year old Japanese car still on the road?

There's probably about 500 more reasons NEVER TO BUY FROM A JAPANESE CAR MAKER!

]]> Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:12:37 -0400
Newman apparently believes that we all should just cooperate with the Japanese invasion/takeover of our MOST BASIC INDUSTRY -- the industry that was the backbone of our military triumph over the godless, fascist agressors from Japan.

If we were going to give Japan the keys to the city, why didn't we just surrender in 1941?

In addition to the brilliant reasons posted earlier, here's five more reasons NEVER TO BUY A SINGLE THING FROM A JAPANESE AUTO COMPANY.

1. Protectionism -- Japan's car makers incubated in protectionist climate which prevented the Detroit 3 from making more than token investments in Japanese OEMs or selling cars in their market.

2. Predatory Business Model -- Japan's car makers were only profitable because of exports, which created huge trade deficits.

3. Lack of Domestic Content -- Just because a Japanese invader car is assembled by non-union labor in the U.S. doesn't mean the parts come from here. American cars support hundreds of thousands more OEM parts supplier jobs than do the invading Japanese transplants.

4. Lack of soul -- excluding a handful of limited-production sports models, Japanese vehicles have all of the driving panache and "soul" of a refrigerator. Buying a Japanese sedan is like wearing a $20-80,000 badge proclaiming that "I'm a self-centered weasel who wouldn't know an exciting car if it ran over me."

5. Government Subsidies -- According to Toyota-ex Jim Press, the Japanese government virtually paid for all of the electric hybrid technology that the tree huggers are ramming down our throats. And its well documented that the Japanese government has provided scads of subsidies and incentives for Japan's invasion of the U.S. auto market.

6. (Just like Joe Isuzu, I lied -- there are more reasons not to send anymore American money to Tokyo)

Buying Japanese deprives the Detroit 3 and their suppliers of necessary investment capital.

7. Bataan Death March.

8. Battle of Midway.

9. Iwo Jima.

10. Guadalcanal

11. Battle of Leyte Gulf

12. Saipan

13. Battle of the Java Sea

14. Kamikazes (not the drink)

15. Nanking Massacre (300,000 Chinese People Killed, 20,000 Women Raped)

16. Causes thousands of quality U.S. jobs to be outsourced to Asia.

17. Destroys many American communities who depend on manufacturing.

18. Subsidizes the pagan, sexist, and zenophobic Japanese culture.

19. Increases the trade deficit.

20. Hurts the value of the U.S. Dollar

21. Multiplier effect (dollars staying in the U.S. will keep circulating in the U.S. economy, creating more jobs and improving the standards of living)

22. National pride -- Let's act like AMERICANS!

23. There are plenty of excellent vehicles sold by Detroit (don't buy into the sycophantic pro-Japan bias of the elite media and the self-selected, methodologically-invalid "Consumer Distorts" surveys.

24. Your grandchildren -- you won't have to look them in the eye and explain why you selfishly helped bankrupt the U.S. auto industry.

25. The Japanese are apparently incapable of making a Mustang or a Shelby GT500, or a Corvette, or a "real" Challenger, or any legitimate performance car that isn't festooned with a hideous "body kit" and/or a stupid "boy racer" wing.

26. When left to their own devices, Japanese styling is "Tokyo-at-night" terrible. The bland exceptions to this rule are from Western collaborators. Thus, if we give the auto business over to the Japanese, we'll get more bland and hideous vehicles.

27. Safety. For example, Toyota trucks have been recalled for fatal steering, brake and airbag defects. Thousands have been killed in undersized, understructured Japanese cars over the years (just look at how some of them fold up like a cheap suit when crashed). Toyota has been sued over the defective seat belts and deadly door latches of its Corolla models. And this is just the tip of the safety iceberg.

28. Repair costs. When they do break down (and they're machines, they all do -- have you ever seen a Japanese traitor/invader dealership without a service department?), Japanese cars are horrendously expensive to repair. One study found that building a typical $20,000 Japanese car out of replacement parts would cost $60,000 (excluding labor, of course). And when was the last time you saw a 20+ year old Japanese car still on the road?

There's probably about 500 more reasons NEVER TO BUY FROM A JAPANESE CAR MAKER!

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125341-former-gm-board-member-i-told-you-so?source=feed#comment-421692 421692
Certainly, GM's soulless, "appliance motorist" bean counters crushed most of what was left of GM during the past thirty years. But the lion's share of the blame rests squarely upon federal policies which bled the Detroit 3 to near-death from unfunded mandates and favoritism toward the predatory Japanese invasion of the U.S. light vehicle market.

Perot, York, and DeLorean were all clueless as to how to truly fix GM. Perot's massive ego gave us two terms of Clinton. York is a wantabee who has lost a truck-load of money for his employer. DeLorean couldn't even build a sports car or manage a simple drug deal, much less run a Fortune 5 corporation. ]]> Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:54:57 -0400
Certainly, GM's soulless, "appliance motorist" bean counters crushed most of what was left of GM during the past thirty years. But the lion's share of the blame rests squarely upon federal policies which bled the Detroit 3 to near-death from unfunded mandates and favoritism toward the predatory Japanese invasion of the U.S. light vehicle market.

Perot, York, and DeLorean were all clueless as to how to truly fix GM. Perot's massive ego gave us two terms of Clinton. York is a wantabee who has lost a truck-load of money for his employer. DeLorean couldn't even build a sports car or manage a simple drug deal, much less run a Fortune 5 corporation. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114665-what-big-auto-wants-from-obama?source=feed#comment-355811 355811
Why?

Because the Detroit companies were stuck with unions as a result of FDR's outrageously pro-organized labor policies in the 1930s and early 1940s.

The Japanese invader assembly plants have avoided unions through exploiting the "right to work" loophole in a number of states (most of which who paid dearly in corporate welfare subsidies to land assembly plants). The Japanese invaders' success in fighting off the UAW has also been augmented by decades of Department of Labor policies and administrative law decisions that have helped non-union employers avoid the parasitic costs of unionization (e.g. stupid work rules, featherbedding, solid-gold benefit plans, severance restrictions and payments).

Note that the Detroit 3 couldn't shed their expensive unions in "right-to-work" states because of the threat of strikes in "closed shop" states and the practice of "pattern bargaining" , despite some reasonable balance returning to federal labor policies in the past 30 years.

Moreover, given the concentration of the Detroit 3 plants in "closed shop" states and Obama's huge political debt to organized labor, even shedding the UAW contracts in bankruptcy is probably a short-lived outcome.

But with a "card check" law, the hapless United Auto Workers union will have its best shot at infecting the Japanese invader assembly plants with unionization, ultimately leading to a more level domestic playing field through "pattern bargaining."


The "Beg 3" also probably want some sort of national health insurance plan so that some (not all) of their excessive benefit costs could be off-loaded onto a larger number of taxpayers and the health "tax" costs of the invader plants would be increased.

The Detroiters (and the UAW) probably also secretly dream of a tariff deal of the sort that saved Harley-Davidson in the 1980s -- but that's unlikely in the current environment. Still, the Obama administration could use the strawmen of environmental and labor standards to weasel out of some "free trade" agreements. However, such an approach probably won't be targeted enough to help the Detroit 3. ]]> Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:32:07 -0500
Why?

Because the Detroit companies were stuck with unions as a result of FDR's outrageously pro-organized labor policies in the 1930s and early 1940s.

The Japanese invader assembly plants have avoided unions through exploiting the "right to work" loophole in a number of states (most of which who paid dearly in corporate welfare subsidies to land assembly plants). The Japanese invaders' success in fighting off the UAW has also been augmented by decades of Department of Labor policies and administrative law decisions that have helped non-union employers avoid the parasitic costs of unionization (e.g. stupid work rules, featherbedding, solid-gold benefit plans, severance restrictions and payments).

Note that the Detroit 3 couldn't shed their expensive unions in "right-to-work" states because of the threat of strikes in "closed shop" states and the practice of "pattern bargaining" , despite some reasonable balance returning to federal labor policies in the past 30 years.

Moreover, given the concentration of the Detroit 3 plants in "closed shop" states and Obama's huge political debt to organized labor, even shedding the UAW contracts in bankruptcy is probably a short-lived outcome.

But with a "card check" law, the hapless United Auto Workers union will have its best shot at infecting the Japanese invader assembly plants with unionization, ultimately leading to a more level domestic playing field through "pattern bargaining."


The "Beg 3" also probably want some sort of national health insurance plan so that some (not all) of their excessive benefit costs could be off-loaded onto a larger number of taxpayers and the health "tax" costs of the invader plants would be increased.

The Detroiters (and the UAW) probably also secretly dream of a tariff deal of the sort that saved Harley-Davidson in the 1980s -- but that's unlikely in the current environment. Still, the Obama administration could use the strawmen of environmental and labor standards to weasel out of some "free trade" agreements. However, such an approach probably won't be targeted enough to help the Detroit 3. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114638-washington-giving-detroit-a-second-chance?source=feed#comment-355780 355780
This is a horrible idea that will amount to nothing more than another wasteful welfare plan. It will lead to the loss of historically significant vehicles and will drive up used car prices. It will adversely impact the supply of used and replacement auto parts which are necessary to low income families as well as to millions of automotive enthusiasts, :"tuners," :"hot rodders" and grassroots racers. The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), car collectors, and motoring enthusast groups will fight such a misguided strategy. ]]> Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:09:20 -0500
This is a horrible idea that will amount to nothing more than another wasteful welfare plan. It will lead to the loss of historically significant vehicles and will drive up used car prices. It will adversely impact the supply of used and replacement auto parts which are necessary to low income families as well as to millions of automotive enthusiasts, :"tuners," :"hot rodders" and grassroots racers. The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), car collectors, and motoring enthusast groups will fight such a misguided strategy. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105061-should-we-really-bail-out-the-big-three-automakers-with-73-20-per-hour-labor?source=feed#comment-308421 308421
The Big 3 have been stuck with uncompetitive, non-market-based labor costs ever since. Moreover Japanese protectionism and government subsidies shielded Japanese car makers and bankrolled much of their advanced technology. State right-to-work laws created a safe haven for the "Japanese invasion" that was unavailable to the Detroit 3. Meanwhile Detroit paid the lion's share of the unfunded mandates on emissions and safety compliance.


The fix should level the playing field by shifting most of the legacy costs across the entire auto industry and tying UAW labor rates to market rates for labor. And the $100 Billion costs of increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy compliance should also be spread to those who supposedly will benefit. ]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:35:12 -0500
The Big 3 have been stuck with uncompetitive, non-market-based labor costs ever since. Moreover Japanese protectionism and government subsidies shielded Japanese car makers and bankrolled much of their advanced technology. State right-to-work laws created a safe haven for the "Japanese invasion" that was unavailable to the Detroit 3. Meanwhile Detroit paid the lion's share of the unfunded mandates on emissions and safety compliance.


The fix should level the playing field by shifting most of the legacy costs across the entire auto industry and tying UAW labor rates to market rates for labor. And the $100 Billion costs of increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy compliance should also be spread to those who supposedly will benefit. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106412-let-gm-fail?source=feed#comment-308409 308409
speedzzter.blogspot.co... details why the "Pottery Barn Rule" should apply to the Detroit automakers. Washington's misguided politices broke the Detroit 3 and now they should accept responsibility for it.

Washington's policies broke the Detroit 3. Now Congress should act to fix decades of policies that destroyed the American auto industry.

While we shouldn't give the liberal Democrats and the UAW a "blank check," doing nothing and letting the Detroit automakers be liquidated in bankruptcy would is not a valid alternative.

We need to take hard steps to stabilize the Detroit 3 in the short term, improve their government-imposed cost structure in the long term and move back toward the free market and freedom of vehicle choice that ill-founded federal policies have killed over the past several decades.

No one bill will accomplish all of this. But to do nothing in hope for a perfect bill is playing "Russian Roulette" with our core industrial base and millions of jobs. ]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:10:37 -0500
speedzzter.blogspot.co... details why the "Pottery Barn Rule" should apply to the Detroit automakers. Washington's misguided politices broke the Detroit 3 and now they should accept responsibility for it.

Washington's policies broke the Detroit 3. Now Congress should act to fix decades of policies that destroyed the American auto industry.

While we shouldn't give the liberal Democrats and the UAW a "blank check," doing nothing and letting the Detroit automakers be liquidated in bankruptcy would is not a valid alternative.

We need to take hard steps to stabilize the Detroit 3 in the short term, improve their government-imposed cost structure in the long term and move back toward the free market and freedom of vehicle choice that ill-founded federal policies have killed over the past several decades.

No one bill will accomplish all of this. But to do nothing in hope for a perfect bill is playing "Russian Roulette" with our core industrial base and millions of jobs. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/77159-new-fuel-rules-favor-detroit-automakers?source=feed#comment-167385 167385
Don't be surprised if we see "footprint" circumvention through larger "Bonneville" streamliner-styled sports cars (i.e. a larger, "lower-density" aerodynamic vehicle designed to artificially increase the "footprint" through wider tracks, tapered and extended tail sections and larger front "splitters"). Also don't be surprised if we see more "trucklets" (Utes, "Rancheros," "El Caminos") and CUV-based "sports cars," with just enough "truck" features to qualify under the more generous truck CAFE standards.

One thing is sure, the new rules will bloat the price of high performance models and will tend to reduce nimbleness. ]]> Wed, 14 May 2008 09:55:34 -0400
Don't be surprised if we see "footprint" circumvention through larger "Bonneville" streamliner-styled sports cars (i.e. a larger, "lower-density" aerodynamic vehicle designed to artificially increase the "footprint" through wider tracks, tapered and extended tail sections and larger front "splitters"). Also don't be surprised if we see more "trucklets" (Utes, "Rancheros," "El Caminos") and CUV-based "sports cars," with just enough "truck" features to qualify under the more generous truck CAFE standards.

One thing is sure, the new rules will bloat the price of high performance models and will tend to reduce nimbleness. ]]>