Archives

In 1979, when it rescued Chrysler from bankruptcy, the Feds insisted on concessions from management, investors and labor. We should do as much or more. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/169162)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/pleease.jpgRobert J Samuelson - Newsweek - November 17, 2008

Kill the cancer - not the patient -- Ed.

Second, labor costs need to be cut. By Lache's estimates, GM's hourly compensation—wage plus fringe benefits—totaled $71 in 2007 compared with Toyota's $47. Health benefits for retirees (many in their 50s, having retired after 30 years) are expensive. These costs contributed to GM's massive cash drain, $31 billion since 2005. But the United Auto Workers opposes making concessions. Just the opposite. Government aid, says UAW president Ron Gettelfinger, is needed "so that auto companies can meet their health-care obligations to more than 780,000 retirees and dependents." The bailout should be more than union welfare.
...http://www.newsweek.com/id/169162

We won't see people with Ailurophobia viewing the home page today.

We won't see people with Ailurophobia viewing the home page today.The expression on the cover picture is exactly like my boss cat Spencer.

At least he does not beg for billions.

Too bad Spencer does not sound like Antonio Banderas. :D

Finally, automakers need a consistent energy policy. Congress demands that companies produce more fuel-efficient vehicles (35 miles per gallon by 2020, up from 25mpg now). But politicians also want low gas prices. These goals are contradictory. To encourage consumers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, Congress should mandate higher gas prices. Gasoline taxes could be raised gradually (say a penny a month for four years, possibly offset by other tax cuts). Wild swings between low and high fuel prices have crippled the U.S. industry by erratically shifting buyer preferences—to and from SUVs.

This is key, and a point I've been making all along. The government needs to step in and raise gasoline taxes to keep gasoline from becoming too cheap. It's already too cheap. If the governement wants to help, it has to pull it's head out of it's arse and help the automakers transition to more fuel efficient vehicles. That won't happen with gasoline @ $2/gallon or less.

Harry

OK,

I'm going to repeat my rant because this topic has been coming up repeatedly for the past week only I've added one more item in number 5. So here goes...


GM has a lot to answer for to be sure. They destroyed public transit in the '30s and the 40's and they have continually opposed, everything from safety glass for windshields, safety belts, airbags, the catalytic converter, they turned their back on a car that could get 80 mpg even though the government paid $1 Billion for the R&D, and finally zero emissions vehicles which, in effect, means electric cars like the EV-1. This time however GM has an electric range extended vehicle that can go 40 miles on a charge and can be plugged in overnight called the Volt. If GM files for chapter 11 it will likely be the end for them and the Volt. People when they are surveyed say they would not buy a car from a company in chapter 11.

So GM must be saved if the Volt is to move ahead. The conditions for the loan/bailout should be:

1 All board members, especially CEO Rick Waggoner who killed the EV-1 and Bob Lutz, have to go and be replaced by those dedicated to plug-ins. Chelsea Sexton who successfully markedted the EV-1 in Southern California would be my personal favorite for CEO of GM.

2 The monies spent go towards retooling the factories to build the high mileage cars like the Cruze and electric cars like the Volt.

3 They must submit quarterly audits to the appropriate Congressional committee. Ways and Means? Energy?

4 Excess funds are to be reinvested in lowering the auto makers’ energy consumption in the manufacturing process.

5 NO MORE FSPs! The days of these monsters are over! Build enough for farmers and industry and market the smaller cars for commuters. I get sick and tired of seeing these behemoths with only one person in them.

It's also important to remember that it wasn't only the U.S. automakers who built these lumbering behemoth trucks and SUVs. Toyota, the auto maker with the fallen green halo is slowing down production of its Toyota Tundra monster truck plant here in San Antonio. They have also stated that they do not plan to build a plug-in hybrid and have talked down GMs progress on the Chevy Volt.

The past half week in particular reminds me of the complictity of the public as both Auston and myself receive road rage plus numerous highbeaming.

The Feds should encourage a quick and smooth '7'

That way the MFG resources currently squandered by GM can be put to more productive uses as soon as possible.

GM is a zombie company

Finally, automakers need a consistent energy policy. Congress demands that companies produce more fuel-efficient vehicles (35 miles per gallon by 2020, up from 25mpg now). But politicians also want low gas prices. These goals are contradictory. To encourage consumers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, Congress should mandate higher gas prices. Gasoline taxes could be raised gradually (say a penny a month for four years, possibly offset by other tax cuts). Wild swings between low and high fuel prices have crippled the U.S. industry by erratically shifting buyer preferences—to and from SUVs.

This is key, and a point I've been making all along. The government needs to step in and raise gasoline taxes to keep gasoline from becoming too cheap. It's already too cheap. If the governement wants to help, it has to pull it's head out of it's arse and help the automakers transition to more fuel efficient vehicles. That won't happen with gasoline @ $2/gallon or less.

Harry

Wow...Just Wow. We absolutely should tax American families more in these trying times. For sure. I mean obviously if you don't drive a Prius the government should make you buy one. So what if you have 4 kids, or you enjoy the safety of an suv to protect your kids. If you own a business where you haul things, or like to take your boat to the lake on the weekend, too bad for you.

I have news for you. The only reason our economy is not in a depression right now is because gas prices have receded. I can't even imagine how tough it would be for families right now if they had to pay 4 dollar gas prices.

If you want to believe that the earth is warming because of a car that’s fine, you can live in whatever fantasy world you like. But there is no reason why the hard working families should pay for Al Gores' unproven science no matter how much money it makes him or the government. The worm is turning on this "theory" and the real data is out there if you chose to do the work to find it, or you can just keep drinking the cool aid.

I'm all for fuel conservation and really all conservation, but I won’t force it on others like some sort of religion. Man made "global warming" is as proven as intelligent design is. In fact intelligent design has more proof than man made gw does.

Wow...Just Wow. We absolutely should tax American families more in these trying times. For sure. I mean obviously if you don't drive a Prius the government should make you buy one. So what if you have 4 kids, or you enjoy the safety of an suv to protect your kids. If you own a business where you haul things, or like to take your boat to the lake on the weekend, too bad for you.

I have news for you. The only reason our economy is not in a depression right now is because gas prices have receded. I can't even imagine how tough it would be for families right now if they had to pay 4 dollar gas prices.

If you want to believe that the earth is warming because of a car that’s fine, you can live in whatever fantasy world you like. But there is no reason why the hard working families should pay for Al Gores' unproven science no matter how much money it makes him or the government. The worm is turning on this "theory" and the real data is out there if you chose to do the work to find it, or you can just keep drinking the cool aid.

I'm all for fuel conservation and really all conservation, but I won’t force it on others like some sort of religion. Man made "global warming" is as proven as intelligent design is. In fact intelligent design has more proof than man made gw does.

Wow, straw-man much? I fail to see how Harry's suggestion of "automakers and Congress should have a medium-to-long-range plan to raise overall efficiency" jumps to "OUTLAW SUVS, FORCED PRIUSES FOR ALL!!!"

Most of all, Harry didn't even mention global warming, why are you trying to attack him on something he didn't even say? But, since you brought it up, I'd like to say a couple things. Global Warming has been a theory since the early 1800s, it wasn't known as that back then but the greenhouse effect, one of the major mechanisms in global warming, was (http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx). Intelligent design was proposed and formalized in 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design). I sincerely doubt that in 20 years, ID has put out more published scientific articles than GW has in over 100.

You might notice that I did use the word "theory", because GW is a theory. However, in science, a theory is a model or set of statements trying to explain an observed phenomenon. It's not a hypothesis, it's not a conjecture, it's not a guess, and it's not religion, as you say. Rather, it's a explanation for available data. Your statements dismiss the host of studies and immense amount of work that has been done on the subject.

I don't know if you've ever been involved in a scientific peer review process, but I have, albeit indirectly, and it's not a love fest. It's meant to scrutinize and pick apart work to ensure that it holds water. Even more informal things such as colloquiums can get downright brutal. Besides, scientists publish their findings and their data, so anyone can see it and review it and poke holes in it.

Skepticism is a wonderful thing, one of the pillars of modern science, but skepticism still holds out the possibility that what you're skeptical about is still right. If you think that global warming is a fantasy then your task is clear, present some of the "real data" opposing that's as comprehensive as the data supporting it, be sure to include analysis that counters the supporting theory, including studies accounting for recent cooling periods (such as http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5CNK/is_2006_Sept_22/ai_n24993549).

Seem like that drink during lunch was kind of strong, based on your last post. ;)

I will not address Climate Change as our lack of an energy policy has caused plenty of other problems, namely an economy that is dependent on cheap oil that will soon go back to $4.00 a gallon an higher in the coming years.

I'm all for fuel conservation and really all conservation, but I won’t force it on others like some sort of religion.

It's not a religion - it's survival

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/2600571887_43bee512c2.jpg?v=0

It was done during WWII to survive, and with out this childish partisan bickering.

BTW, Earthling and myself are GOP and did not vote for Al Gore in 2000, so could you kindly refrain from implying we are socialists? Yeah, I know DeCaprio made the Prius cool and Rush assumes everyone that tries to be green is an ecowacko....how I wish the first Prius driver was Mel Gibson - but he drove an EV1. ;)

All Earthling and myself wanted was Detroit to have some honest fuel economy standards and be competent capitalists that made decent vehicles that could be sold when people wake up to the fact efficiency matters. The real socialist plot is Detroit doing what they want for 30yrs then crying to Washington they are about to go bankrupt!

Limited government works when you have rugged individuals that exercise responsibility, unlike Detroit and AIG...I'm for it - just put in CEO's and board members that leave the company better than when they found it.

It would also help if we did not have so many entitled Americans defensively like a number of Soccer Moms "I NEED MY Excursion" with the same maturity as their 2yr spoiled brat. I guess it's a convient delision for such folks to deny Peak Oil (apologizes to Al Gore)

If we want to reduce oil usage, taxing gas/oil more would be a way to accomplish it. It doens't matter the reason, GW, energy indepence, etc...the meathod works. The money should be made available to help those who want to participate do so. That could include additional rebates on high efficiency vehicles, mass transit, and even improving roadways so less gas is wasted to the rush hour idle. Just because we are in a recession shouldn't stop us from putting such a policy in place. If it had been in place earlier, this recession might not have happened or might not be so severe (lots of mights). No matter what, it should be phased in gently, not all in a single year.

As far as some of Radio tec's suggestions, I'd say your pushing a single vision at the expense of others. While PHEV are my prefered choice too, they are not the only choice. In addition, they may not be marketable. If money goes to detroit, pushing some efficiencies on them might be good, but saying you must run your business like X, when X may not make a self substaining business makes no senes. I'd consider things like forbidding any lobying by the company until it repays & setting up max sallaries for execs. Maybe they should actually put all execs on minimum wage with all real money associated with company performance in both long & short term. Based on great short term performance, an exec might "earn" 10million, but he only gets 1 per year & may stop receiving if the long term trends go down. Frankly I don't see anyone as needing that sort of money except as a personal power trip anyway.