H
Hydrogen
Guest
Fair enough.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Glen
Senior Member
Here in the US, my employer, a state-financed postsecondary institution of higher learning, had to take a massive cut - 35% of our annual budget. Positions will be cut and entire departments closed. Considering that our mission is to make society more competitive and foster innovation, I find it galling that an industry where high school dropouts make the same as middle managers by screwing together obsolete cars for a market that doesn't want them, are so successful at getting exactly what they want.
Are you suggesting that those cuts were wrong? That it is right to subsidise you but not others?
If you really think that the current state of the US auto industry is simply a matter of US producers being over priced with undesirable vehicles you really need to dig deeper into the issues.The US auto producers have been accused of having too many trucks and large vehicle's. Plus they have too many brands. The reality is that the US producers have been reducing brands and making more small cars and trucks. All the while Toyota, Honda and Nissan have added divisions and many new truck models. At the same time the quality gap has disappeared. Given enough time, operating in the same market, most of these mainstream producers would/will have resembled each other.
Ignoring Japan's past currency manipulations and unilateral trade restrictions along with China's current ones seems ridiculous. For Japan, that averaged about $2,000 in subsidy per vehicle prior to 2005. Japan and China do not have over a trillion dollars in US treasuries because they are/were a good investment. Japan's METI office has been subsidising the Japanese auto industry's R/D for years (BTW, as of today they also pay part of their wages).
I am not saying that the US auto makers don't have issues. They most certainly do. But there are other factors that have weighed them down.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Are you suggesting that those cuts were wrong? That it is right to subsidise you but not others?
I didn't suggest anything. Regardless of what I think, the state I live in is mandated by the state's constitution to provide and fund higher education at this particular university. It was approved by 2/3 of the electorate in a vote in 1950 and subsequently made law.
As far as I know, neither the state of Michigan, the United States, Canada, nor the Province of Ontario have any mandate to provide employment or funding for the workers of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. If they want to put that to a popular vote they can be my guest but, like my university, they will have to accept conditions a little heavier than meeting emissions standards. Conditions like, say, nationalization.
Last edited:
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
If you really think that the current state of the US auto industry is simply a matter of US producers being over priced with undesirable vehicles you really need to dig deeper into the issues.The US auto producers have been accused of having too many trucks and large vehicle's. Plus they have too many brands. The reality is that the US producers have been reducing brands and making more small cars and trucks. All the while Toyota, Honda and Nissan have added divisions and many new truck models. At the same time the quality gap has disappeared. Given enough time, operating in the same market, most of these mainstream producers would/will have resembled each other.
Ignoring Japan's past currency manipulations and unilateral trade restrictions along with China's current ones seems ridiculous. For Japan, that averaged about $2,000 in subsidy per vehicle prior to 2005. Japan and China do not have over a trillion dollars in US treasuries because they are/were a good investment. Japan's METI office has been subsidising the Japanese auto industry's R/D for years (BTW, as of today they also pay part of their wages).
I am not saying that the US auto makers don't have issues. They most certainly do. But there are other factors that have weighed them down.
Sorry to continue from my previous post...
Recognizing the unfair tariffs that Asian countries slap on imported cars, I'd be all for doing something similar in Canada and the US. It would have the double effect of generating revenue for the state and saving taxpayer money from being spent on an auto bailout. Of course, so many of the "Japanese" cars that compete and outsell their American counterparts are manufactured in North America with North American parts, so it wouldn't apply to them.
You can read a list of the areas where the Big 3 are "trying really hard", but at the end of the day it just boils down to the fact that fewer and fewer people are buying American cars. If they are failing due to a bad legacy that is years behind them and an undeserved reputation, it doesn't matter: they are still failing, and we shouldn't rescue that sinking ship.