Comments on: On “Government Motors”

By: Dusty

Dusty — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:15:22 +0000

George, you’re correct, Chrysler Ford and GM will be successful IF they build cars that people want.

I happen to be one of those that believe while Chrysler’s product offerings aren’t very deep, most of what they have are good products. But I believe Chrysler is still hampered by the perception of poor quality. Whether real or overblown, Chrysler’s future success is more tied to increased quality than it will be for design.

Despite the fact I think they’re ugly, I see a lot of Calibers around. My Dodge salesman says the Cailbers “move pretty fairly.” Assuming my tastes for beauty are in the minority, if Chrysler had a better reputation for quality I think they’d sell more.

By: George

George — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:17:46 +0000

The creation of “Government Motors” also has to do with trade policies, government monetary policy, and merger policy. Our open auto market in the US has done a lot of good in some ways and it has hurt us in other. The quality of cars has improved a great deal and the foreign cars have given us more choice thorigu competition. Detroit has made cars were the profit is. If you cna build a Grand Cherokee and make $9000 on it or $1000 profit on a Neon which are you going to build when gas prices are low? We also have allowed cars to come in from Korea or other places where it is impossible in that car’s home country to buy an “American” made car. If you send an American made car to Japan or Korea, the tariffs would be so high that no one would buy them. Trade should be fair trade. Now with all the talk of importing cars from China, we are losing more fair trade. Government policy also easy credit and merger mania. The “merger of equals” that Chrysler was in left a stripped company once Daimler was done. It would be interesting to see a comparison of a 1997 pre merger Chrysler with a 2007 one in terms of engineers, plants, capital, etc. The government approved the merger between a Chrysler that was at one of it’s most successful points in its history then it was torn to shreds by Daimler. We need to watch the merger mania and keep competiton going. If the government can stay out of micromanaging GM, then it has a chance to work. GM needs a chance as does the new Chrysler. The way the bankruptcies were done hopefully leaves a good set of companies that will preserve American and Canadian jobs and makes good products that people will buy. We also need to encourage fair trade policies that allow the US to manufacture stuff. Hopefully Chrysler, GM, and Ford survive. They have a lot to overcome with people’s past perceptions of them and now that it is entrenched in many people’s minds that Toyotas, Nissans, and Subarus are supposedly better cars. If we can change these things, then GM and the new Chrysler have a chance of surviving and prospering.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:47:08 +0000

I think the primary complaint with regard to the bank bailouts was that they were done under secrecy (the first groups), the executives were retained and paid huge bonuses, a lot of the money appeared to be grants rather than loans, etc. In other words, I think most of the objections were operational rather than based on principle.

A hands-off government seems to only be practical when tariff walls are erected to protect domestic industry from the various governments that support their industry.