The future of Corvette

[AU N EGL]

and how many ppl does GM employ ? let alone the supplier of parts for those other bands?

[The Badger]

Here in Austria , there is talks going on about Lufthansa buying Austrian Airways . They reckon there is 8000 jobs could be effected , with up to 42,000 satelite jobs too .

[Sam Elias]

GM employs almost 300,000. And when you add parts suppliers, the number grows to over a million. If GM goes down it will probably take the entire North American auto industry with it.

[broadrun96]

No probably about it, even companies GM doesnt own will be hurt. A lot of parts suppliers have contracts with all 3 and any closure/cutbacks at GM or Ford may do the suppliers in, in turn causing both of them to have to cut back; starting the death spiral for both.
If the Senate passes any kind of bailout, racing may be saved for the 09 season since it's part of a current contract. However, R&D for the car may be really limited, making P&M a backmarker if they even chose to show. At some point the UAW may kill off road racing of US cars and even cut NASCAR back to its 80s levels, gotta cut those retiree benefits some time soon or the future will have no benefits for them or Vettes on the race track for us.

[TWK]

Excuse me if I get a little exercised when the term "domestic auto industry" is applied exclusively to GM, Ford, and (the former) Chrysler.

Honda builds more of its cars - and more of their content in the United States than any of them. Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche all build cars in the US, as do others.

And the nonsense about "the money going to" (fill it in...japan, Germany, etc.) is ridiculous. Parts are mostly bought here...that money is spent here, workers are paid here, plants are built here, design and R&D is done here (HPD for instance), taxes are paid here. Profits, you say? They go to reinvestment (including plants here), and to shareholders (in case you haven't noticed, Toyota (and the rest) are as likely to have US shareholders (including your own mutual funds and pension funds) as they are Japanese or German.

So get over it. There are only two kinds of automotive companies...the winners and the losers. The latter have only themselves to blame. They, and no one else signed bad contracts. They and no one else maintained too many dealers and too many brands. They and no one else just kept building the biggest lumbering gas hogs they could and making big margins on them (after successfully lobbying Congress to make sure those dinosaurs were exempted from fuel economy and (some) safety standards.

They get what they earned. The airlines and other industries successfully reorganize under the protection of bankruptcy court, so should the Detroit 3.

[fjn356]

You nailed it, TWK

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by TWK

Excuse me if I get a little exercised when the term "domestic auto industry" is applied exclusively to GM, Ford, and (the former) Chrysler.

Honda builds more of its cars - and more of their content in the United States than any of them. Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche all build cars in the US, as do others.

And the nonsense about "the money going to" (fill it in...japan, Germany, etc.) is ridiculous. Parts are mostly bought here...that money is spent here, workers are paid here, plants are built here, design and R&D is done here (HPD for instance), taxes are paid here. Profits, you say? They go to reinvestment (including plants here), and to shareholders (in case you haven't noticed, Toyota (and the rest) are as likely to have US shareholders (including your own mutual funds and pension funds) as they are Japanese or German.

So get over it. There are only two kinds of automotive companies...the winners and the losers. The latter have only themselves to blame. They, and no one else signed bad contracts. They and no one else maintained too many dealers and too many brands. They and no one else just kept building the biggest lumbering gas hogs they could and making big margins on them (after successfully lobbying Congress to make sure those dinosaurs were exempted from fuel economy and (some) safety standards.

They get what they earned. The airlines and other industries successfully reorganize under the protection of bankruptcy court, so should the Detroit 3.

What is the U.S. parts content of the Japanese cars?
I mean made HERE from scratch, NOT shipped in.
Toyota has always been a components assembler, i.e. they do not make the parts that the car consists of, never have and never will (engines major exception). Unless the parts that go into the Japanese cars are manufactured, not shipped in and assembled, here,; if one of the big three goes under ALL the North American made, parts builders, could go under with them.
This is why when U.S. car makers started letting out contracts for parts they used to make, it created jobs that exist only as long as the car maker is still going.

[mazda1]

Speaking of Corvette GT1 program , I am glad they are going. They ruin the GT1 category anyways by trying to control things. I am glad GM is going too. They always want to dominate in whatever they race even if it means putting pressure on the series like they did this year on Grand am GT. They restricted the RX8 right when they were catching the Pontiac just so GM would win. They ruin the battle for the championship!!! I hope they burn in hell.

[TWK]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

What is the U.S. parts content of the Japanese cars?
I mean made HERE from scratch, NOT shipped in.
Toyota has always been a components assembler, i.e. they do not make the parts that the car consists of, never have and never will (engines major exception). Unless the parts that go into the Japanese cars are manufactured, not shipped in and assembled, here,; if one of the big three goes under ALL the North American made, parts builders, could go under with them.
This is why when U.S. car makers started letting out contracts for parts they used to make, it created jobs that exist only as long as the car maker is still going.

"except engines," and, and, and... Meanwhile, enjoy your Mexican Focus.

"American" cars are a fantasy. Time to get over the dream. What we have are three very badly managed companies that wil p*** away every dime they get. Here's some reading:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669746125629365.html

Then there is this from the Detroit Free Press:

A Free Press analysis of federal data
found that vehicles built by Detroit automakers
have steadily increased their
proportion of parts from outside the
United States and Canada. By the same
measure, vehicles built in North America
by Japan’s largest automakers increasingly
use U.S. and Canadian parts.

From the Free Press article, as of 2006:

81 percent of the parts value in General Motors Corp. vehicles sold last year came from the United States or Canada, down from 87 percent five years ago and 91 percent in 1995.

For Ford Motor Co., 82 percent of parts value was U.S. or Canadian-sourced, down from 87 percent in 2000 and 86 percent in 1995.

Chrysler had the lowest total for a Detroit automaker at 76 percent, down from 80 percent five years ago and 89 percent 10 years ago.

Among the top three Japanese automakers:

Toyota drew 75 percent of its parts value from U.S. or Canadian sources for the vehicles it made and sold in the United States last year, up from 57 percent in 2000 and 49 percent in 1995.

At Honda, 68 percent of its North American vehicles' parts value was U.S. or Canadian. That was down slightly from 70 percent in 2000 but up from 47 percent in 1995.

Nissan had the lowest total among Japan's Big Three at 57 percent, compared with 58 percent in 2000 and 42 percent in 1995.

From the same article, there's this little "slight of hand."

The Chevy HHR, made in Ramos Arizpe, Mexico, is sold with a window sticker mandated by U.S. law saying the vehicle has 85 percent "domestic" content, meaning parts from the United States or Canada.

But Bo Andersson, GM's vice president of global purchasing, said in a recent speech that 64 percent of the parts value in the HHR originates in Mexico, while 30 percent comes from the United States.

GM said the HHR's label reflects an average of its parts value with larger U.S.-made sport utility vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Trailblazer.

[elan]

As to the future of Corvette Racing, Max Papis will not be part of it for 2009. His NASCAR ride will conflict.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by TWK

"except engines," and, and, and... Meanwhile, enjoy your Mexican Focus.
"American" cars are a fantasy. Time to get over the dream. What we have are three very badly managed companies that wil p*** away every dime they get. Here's some reading:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669746125629365.html
Then there is this from the Detroit Free Press:
From the Free Press article, as of 2006:
From the same article, there's this little "slight of hand."

Last time I checked Mexico was part of N. America, and unless history has changed, the Big three and AMC made and/or sold cars from Canada down to Argentina forty years ago already.

[The Badger]

If you want to go back in time , maybe you blame the Irish , as FORD himself was Irish .

Mexico is part of the continent of America , not part of USA , although some seem to behave like it is . So parts manufacturing done in Mexico is imports .

[TWK]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Last time I checked Mexico was part of N. America, and unless history has changed, the Big three and AMC made and/or sold cars from Canada down to Argentina forty years ago already.

Last time I checked, Bob, the United States government and the automakers defined "domestic content" as "United States and Canada." It's simply the law. Take it up with Congress, not with me.

The fact is that the trend is toward more domestic content by "foriegn" manufacturers and less by "domestic." The numbers provided are from 2006, and they have gotten closer since. I hate to shake your world view, but there is no defendable financial, business, or employment distinction between "domestic" and "foreign" automotive manufacturers. Truth be told your cherished "domestic" parts suppliers to the "Detroit 3" have moved much of their manufacturing off shore.

For those who have been paying attention, the cost of manufacturung (including particularly labor) has been increasing over the past three decades in Japan, until it is equal to the cost in US "right to work" states. Manufacturing costs in Europe (in particular labor) have been higher than in the United States (anywhere) for a long time. That's why the trend toward "domestic content" is as it is.

In my opinion, the whole "domestic" versus "foriegn" debate as it applies to Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, et. al. is bogus. All of those manufacturers, and those in every industry, just like their counterparts headquartered in the United States, build products all over the world, wherever it makes the most business sense. That has put German and Japanese plants here and US plants in Mexico. To the extent that a company doesn't do that - because of a contract or any other reason - they find themselves in the pickle that the Detroit 3 do.

[Adam Larnach]

TWK I'm completely on board with that train of thought as you'll see my comments on the ALMS board regarding the issue.

They have made poor decisions and are now paying for it. The last thing we need (and cannot afford) is another large corporation on government welfare. If they cannot survive, then it is because they have chosen not to.

It seems the common theme these days is that if you make bad decisions in life, there will always be someone to bail you out, a safety net of sort. This idea propagates the wrong message not only to corporations looking for bailouts, but also 'common folk' and their 'youngins, which only serves to repeat the process. Greed and the inability to learn from our mistakes has caused this.

For what it's worth in terms of commodities, Mexico is still considered domestic. If you look at the way domestic steel is dropping, the domestic mills and supplies that stockpiled domestic bar are now kicking themselves with the huge drop (and huge losses)... also caused by greed and bad short-term business decisions.

[AU N EGL]

and who has purchased or leased a new vehicle with no money down? or used the manufactures 0% interest for 60 or 72 months? Would not those two examples also be part of the problem as well?

Or ppl who lease vehicles for personal use vs leased vehicles for business use?

PPL buying houses for zero down and sub prime mortgage rate?

We the consumer are just as much to blame as the manufactures and credit companies / banks.

IMO to start the change process, ppl should not buy anything unless you can put 10-20% or more down in CASH.

If someone dont have the cash for a down payment, then maybe they should not buy it.

[Jonerz]

Subprime lending was the result of government legislation wasn't it?

Chris

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

and who has purchased or leased a new vehicle with no money down? or used the manufactures 0% interest for 60 or 72 months? Would not those two examples also be part of the problem as well?

Or ppl who lease vehicles for personal use vs leased vehicles for business use?

PPL buying houses for zero down and sub prime mortgage rate?

We the consumer are just as much to blame as the manufactures and credit companies / banks.

IMO to start the change process, ppl should not buy anything unless you can put 10-20% or more down in CASH.

If someone dont have the cash for a down payment, then maybe they should not buy it.

Do not forget, EVER, it was the Dem. who FORCED banks to loan to people who should not have had a loan.
Sadly and predictably, the main stream media covered that fact up as much as possible and not the the Obama, the chosed one, can wreak havoc on the U.S. with a bunch of socialist feces.

Should Detroit be saved by the government, NO, as the result will the cure will be worse thanthe disease.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

and who has purchased or leased a new vehicle with no money down? or used the manufactures 0% interest for 60 or 72 months? Would not those two examples also be part of the problem as well?

Or ppl who lease vehicles for personal use vs leased vehicles for business use?

PPL buying houses for zero down and sub prime mortgage rate?

We the consumer are just as much to blame as the manufactures and credit companies / banks.

IMO to start the change process, ppl should not buy anything unless you can put 10-20% or more down in CASH.

If someone dont have the cash for a down payment, then maybe they should not buy it.

Do not forget, EVER, it was the Dem. who FORCED banks to loan to people who should not have had a loan.
Sadly and predictably, the main stream media covered that fact up as much as possible and not the the Obama, the chosed one, can wreak havoc on the U.S. with a bunch of socialist feces.

Should Detroit be saved by the government, NO, as the result will the cure will be worse thanthe disease.

[Bob Riebe]

``

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Do not forget, EVER, it was the Dem. who FORCED banks to loan to people who should not have had a loan.
Sadly and predictably,

I voted to keep America Strong. not to be come a socialist nation.

Eight months ago my wife and I wipped out most of our savings to buy an other chunk of forest land. If we would have waited until now, we could have never purchased the land. No mortgages on any of our forest land or vehicles. Small mortgage on our house less then 30% LTV.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Do not forget, EVER, it was the Dem. who FORCED banks to loan to people who should not have had a loan.

Forced?

[TWK]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Forced?

In the sense of requiring that Freddie and Fannie were required to buy mortgages that did not meet previous standards. That's not exactly "forced<" but it's certainly "enabling."

[The359]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Sadly and predictably, the main stream media covered that fact up as much as possible and not the the Obama, the chosed one, can wreak havoc on the U.S. with a bunch of socialist feces.

Brian Moore and the Socialist Party of the United States does not find Obama's tax plan to be remotely socialist, and find it a gross misunderstanding of the ideals of socialism.

So please don't throw around a concept you clearly don't understand, just because some media (predictably?) has it wrong.

[Adam Larnach]

Just because the banks "enabled" people to get mortgages (which partially resulted from affirmative action and other ideological policies) does not mean one should do it, and the consumers claiming ignorance can take a hike. Those that subscribe to the train of thought that "well the banks let them do it, so they are at fault too" need a reality check. That's like saying it's the car dealer's fault that Sally ran over a pedestrian because they sold her the car.

Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and told them to sign on the dotted line.

[TWK]

Originally Posted by The359

Brian Moore and the Socialist Party of the United States does not find Obama's tax plan to be remotely socialist, and find it a gross misunderstanding of the ideals of socialism.

So please don't throw around a concept you clearly don't understand, just because some media (predictably?) has it wrong.

Did someone say something about a "tax plan?"

On the other hand, it's irrelevent what Brian Moore says, because neither he nor his party own the only definition of socialism, what it is or how you get there. Perhaps this partial textbook definition will help you, since "you clearly don't understand."

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society.

That sounds familiar.

All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

So some socialists might disagree with Mr. Moore?

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries.

So, we don't need a revolution, it seems.

Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Hmmmm...buying stock in banks, suggesting the government take control of the auto companies in return for capital...within the framework of a market economy?

It seems there are definitions and characteristics of socialism quite outside the control of Mr. Moore and his party.