-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Speed Limiters, Too?
December 28, 2012 | 70 comments
Car Guy
Wasting General Motors
What neither Wagoner nor Obama wants to talk about.
(Page 2 of 2)
Apparently, not so much.
And how — and when - will consumer spending return? Not by turning on the Fed’s printing presses, that’s for sure. All monetary inflation (the honest term for the $1 trillion “stimulus” plan) does is create higher prices for the same goods. Buying power is not increased. The only way to achieve that is via productive enterprise. You know, making useful things that people want to buy.
We Americans need to relearn how to do that. If we do, the auto industry will eventually take care of itself.
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (151) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/31/wasting-general-motors
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
amal almalki| 3.31.09 @ 6:47AM
what are the expected senarios for the future of GMC
H ow about the rights of the owners of Yukon xl and the Denale oversease outside USA
Kitty| 3.31.09 @ 7:10AM
Not only are people tapped out and keeping discretionary spending to a minimum, but businesses are doing the samething, too.
Cavuto talked with a lawyer for a large corporation who said that instead of trying to build the business, the CEO was holding tight, waiting to see what happens. The lawyer said this non-reaction will eventually freeze the economy.
...
David Mathews | 3.31.09 @ 7:38AM
Eric Peters says:
* "The plain fact is people -- the market -- wanted these vehicles. Desperately. GM et al. (and that includes the sainted Japanese) responded rationally and accordingly. "
I suppose it follows, by a similar line of reasoning, that all those morbidly obese people eating unhealthy food at McDonald's want to be morbidly obese. McDonald's is serving the market by fulfilling the demand for morbid obesity.
Oh, well ... the auto industry is dead. The SUV was an extremely profitable dead end for the auto industry.
Actually ... the SUV was a dinosaur, a byproduct of American irrationality, competitive shopping, morbid obesity and hyperconsumerism. The SUV only makes sense within a bubble economy in which fraudulent prosperity financing the purchase of lots of unnecessary consumer goods in order to fill unnecessarily lsrge McMansions.
But the bubble burst and the auto industry died. Too bad for them! No, I don't feel any sympathy for any of those corporations. GM, Chrysler and Ford can all go out of business. They should, too.
The United States of America is bankrupt and insolvent and poised to collapse in the same dramatic fashion as the Soviet Union. Americans are going to become impoverished and our lifestyle will change forever.
The American Way of Life is dead. Capitalism is dead. The Empire is dead. The automobile is dead.
Thank God. You people will have no choice except to live differently.
Pecos Pete| 3.31.09 @ 7:57AM
All bow down to Mr. Brownshirt David Mathews who shall now lead us to the promised land of ... well, of whatever he decides it should be.
Kitty| 3.31.09 @ 7:59AM
Families bought SUVs when station wagons were no longer made.
...
jerryofva| 3.31.09 @ 8:57AM
Over at the Truth About Cars they asked readers to identify some common myths about automobiles. Well here is one that got a little play:
Myth: Toyoda and other major Japanese automakers specialize in small cars. This is utter nonsense. Toyoda has the same profile as GM. Nissan is like Toyoda but has more of a performance emphasis. Honda comes closest to the myth but they specialize in mid-size cars. No majaor manufacturer of automobiles specializes in small cars. Econoboxes sold in the US market are for show and not for profit.
Mark H| 3.31.09 @ 9:01AM
Dear David,
* "I suppose it follows, by a similar line of reasoning, that all those morbidly obese people eating unhealthy food at McDonald's want to be morbidly obese. McDonald's is serving the market by fulfilling the demand for morbid obesity. "
I guess this makes sense to the liberal/socialist mind. I'm guessing those people that choose to go into a McDonald's and gorge themselves really had no choice. Why haven't I fallen prey to their sneaky advertising that leaves me no choice but to become obese? Maybe because I choose not to!
And, do you really believe that even if Ford, GM, and Chrysler go out of business there will not be any more cars, or SUVs? Someone more competent will fill the void. That's how capitalism works.
GetReal| 3.31.09 @ 9:02AM
Mathews has an odd and unique way of looking at things. In his world, businesses should not sell products or services that the market wants (whether they need it or not, in his view). In his world, if you produce and sell a legal product to the market, you are at fault if they buy too much of it, ingest too much of it, or use it erroneously. I am sure, in his world, gun manufacturers are responsible for every murder every committed. But wait Mr. Mathews, in your world, how does a business make a profit? How does an individual earn an income? How do new technologies get introduced into the market? How do advances in healthcare happen? No, capitalism is not dead. Capitalism, without big government intrusion, will never die. It will always live in the genetic makeup of the ambitious and the driven. Supply and demand baby! You can't kill it. Since the 1930's, government has tried to manipulate the market with disasterous results. But rest assured, it will come back, with a vengence. Thank God.
Curly Smith| 3.31.09 @ 9:23AM
The problem with GM saying "Hey, let's stop building these 'wasteful' trucks and SUVs. People need to drive efficient compacts and hybrids that get 40 mpg" is that those vehicles are loss leaders for GM because of their cost structure. All manufacturers make products for specific price points, whether it's cars, computers or appliances. Because GM's cost structure is non-competitive you get more car from Toyota and Honda for the same money. Sure, that upsets the new CEO of GM, David Matthews, who doesn't support the consumer's "right to choose" but competition forces companies to deliver their best product at the best price. Unfortunately GM was mismanaged by Management, Labor, and the Political Class who all seem to share the new CEO's attitude that "The American Way of Life is dead. Capitalism is dead. The Empire is dead. The automobile is dead."
I do wonder, though, what is materially different in GM now versus when the largesse was granted. Their problems then are the same as they are now, absolutely nothing of consequence has changed with the company. What exactly did the taxpayers get for the billions in charity? Or was the bailout what it appears... simply a political payoff to the unions for helping elect Obama?
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 9:31AM
Hey guys & gals. Not to worry. PREZ Goodwrench is here to save us all.
OMG... we are so screwed!
Gokart-mozart| 3.31.09 @ 9:31AM
Matthews sez "the SUV was a dinosaur, a byproduct of American irrationality, competitive shopping, morbid obesity and hyperconsumerism. The SUV only makes sense within a bubble economy in which fraudulent prosperity financing the purchase of lots of unnecessary consumer goods in order to fill unnecessarily lsrge McMansions."
Actually, my new Suburban is to small for my wife and I, plus our seven kids. We don't actually have any of those "unnecessary" consumer goods, and no one is morbidly obese.
What does Matthews have to say about us? Don't bother, I'm sure I know. Matthews and his ilk hate American consumption and American prosperity because they hate life and love death.
Matthews and his brethren have declared war on the human race. The thing is, Matthews, we're on to you, and the resistance has begun.
dnha14| 3.31.09 @ 9:32AM
How much feed can a farmer carry in a Prius?
How many fence posts can a farmer carry in a Prius?
Etc. Etc.
How many minutes experience does O have in the auto business? The answer looks very similar to his initial 0=O.
Chrysler, the pigs that they are, deserve to be joined at the hip with "Fix It Again Tony" (Fiat). Out of the three I hope it's Chrysler that goes down the tubes.
JP| 3.31.09 @ 10:04AM
People,
DMatthews is a Moonbat Troll. It is best to ignore his rants. He will soon return here and answer every one of your posts. Those answers will be a mish-mash of absurdities and medication induced nonsense.
ProudChevyDealer| 3.31.09 @ 10:19AM
God I love the internet! - Everybody gets to be a journalist and an expert! Actually some of the comments here are more rational than most blogs.
It really tickles me that most of those who write about how bad GM is haven't been in GM showroom in 25 years. Go drive a Malibu or Silverado or Tahoe or CTS or Aveo - I could go on but these vehicles are BEST IN CLASS - BAR NONE. They are higher quality, lower priced, and more fuel efficient than any other vehicles they compete against. What the average consumer DOESN'T know (or refuses to accept) is killing the domestic auto industry. The real culprit is the lack of credit available. I lose 5 sales a day because banks and GMAC are unable to package auto loans and sell them to institutional investors at reasonable rates. The Credit Default Swap insurance premiums are 30% of the loan amount. That is Wall Street Highway Robbery. Fix institutional investor confidence and you'll fix the car business.
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 10:19AM
dnha14
++++++++++++
We learned one thing in WA state... Prius is worthless once you get more than 4 inches of snow.
Ed | 3.31.09 @ 10:28AM
While I agree that right NOW people are not buying because of a PERCEIVED lack of discretionary spending, if GM and Chrysler had paid attention to QUALITY, they would not be in the dire straights they find themselves. When my brand new 1986 Pontiac began rattling and leaking I traded it for a Japanese vehicle and have never bought anything but Japanese since. I (and many, many like me) bought THEN because of quality.
Of course I could be wrong, maybe they would have wasted any quality advantage too.
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 10:28AM
ProudChevyDealer
++++++++++++
Well not trying to pick on you, but I bought 3 Fords from the 1980's to 1990's. Every one of them lived at the service dept. I'm not talking simple stuff.. I mean major. Like a blow trans at 28.000 miles. Computers gone bad. (3)
My son has a 2005 Chev Sliverado that is showing trans problems at 60.000 miles. (auto)
I switched to a used 1994 Toyota Land Cruiser that I now have 170.000 miles on it with zero problems!
I've owned Chev's before and hope to have another... But I a good car that doesn't live in the dang shop.
In the words of Reagan. I didn't leave American cars, they left me.
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 10:30AM
oops. Not enough coffee
(But I WANT a good car that )
Ed | 3.31.09 @ 10:36AM
If a car salesman can pose as an actuary, why can't we pose as car experts? BTW, we don't need to go to a showroom to see the lack of quality in a GM car. Headliners flapping in the breeze, paint jobs shot, testimony from friends who are GM owners, all lead to the conclusion that these "so called" quality improvements are just as ethereal as credit default swaps.
Anthony| 3.31.09 @ 10:37AM
Mr. Peters, You begin your article with the sentence that the man who helped ruin G. M. is being ousted... Then you proceed to tell us that under Wagoner, G.M. was doing rather well. Which is it? The truth is the auto industry made horrible management decisions, especially with the unions, putting Detroit at a serious disadvantage to the tune of $1,500+ a car in increased labor costs. Of course, the heavy breath of the U.S. government was felt on the necks of these auto Exs during this time. In addition, mixed signals and assinine legislation from Washington made it impossible for any rationale executive to see a clear path to the future. The government was and is changing the rules of business each and every day. Meanwhile, foreign Cos, without these huge union costs, are doing bettter in the South, than their counterparts in Detroit.
But the real joke here is that the President of the U.S., a community organizer with no experience at ANYTHING, has been elected president by morons and trolls, only to get his "real world" bona fides in business, by taking over G.M. This is ass backwards, of course, but typical of Obama and the Dems. Watching Obama last night hawking Detroit's auto warranties was sureal!! The president as First Car Salesman !!!This is insane!! But it is the exact direction our country is indeed going thanks to the Democrats now in control.
Bill| 3.31.09 @ 10:42AM
Actually I do not think DM's comments are worth responding to but I will just once. I see him as a person who has never accomplished anything in life and therefore is bitter at any who are successful. One who can't make his own decisions and is still tied to mother's apron strings. Hey Dave are you still living at home and riding a two wheeler? And how many jobs have you been fired from? I use to see many like you come and go in the work force. They went because they could not see any higher than the dust on their shoes.
Wake up son before life passes you by and leaves you wondering what could have been.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 10:55AM
I have a '99 Jeep Cherokee I bought new. It replaced an '84 that had 240,000 miles on it when I sold it. Neither vehicle has ever given me any major problems, and until six years ago, both vehicles were run through a Maine winter every year. It has a V-6 that gets just 20 mpg on the road. I can haul my 25' sailboat with it, haul my beehives out into the desert, and drive cross country in reasonable comfort. In my little town, I walk or cycle most places since nothing is more than a mile away so I don't care what it gets in city traffic.
Now why would I want a small car? And where would I put the beehives?
Nittany| 3.31.09 @ 10:58AM
As anecdotes are permitted....my "Datsun" was a piece of junk, my Jag was a piece of junk, my Mercedes was an extremely expensive piece of junk; my '73 Buick Riv I kept until 2007 and 130k, our '99 vette, Caddy SRX, Pontiac G-6 and new Buick Lucerne are big ,powerful, efficient, beautiful and reliable vehicles... so keep your flapping headliners to yourself as you squeeze yourself into your souless Camry or Accord. Oh by the way, try to trade one in anywhere but the dealership you bought it from and you'll find out what the true "resale" value is .
Dai Alanye | 3.31.09 @ 10:59AM
I first bought GM in late '84—the Somerset, a beautifully designed compact. When I had to get rid of it at 300,000+ miles I was a little heartbroken. Since then my wife and I have bought nothing but GM—LeSabre, Venture, HHR—a rather eclectic mix.
Too bad they never tamed their union, but BObama will no doubt negotiate away all labor problems, leading the corporation into the sunny uplands of profitability and social responsibility. Sure he will.
Ed| 3.31.09 @ 11:12AM
Nittany, the "flapping headliners" are in GM vehicles I see coasting down the road, 35,000 miles per year. And Consumer Reports, the only source that doesn't take car company money, has exhaustive, real data that supports my "anecdotal" observations.
I've never owned a Camry or Accord, FYI. Cressida, Avalon, 4Runner, Sequoia, also Nissan Maxima and Pathfinder were my choices, thank you very much. I forgot, I bought a used 1989 Mercedes 420SEL for my son. It only has 277,000 miles right now.
brutus| 3.31.09 @ 12:00PM
David Mathews said in his first post here:
"Thank God..."
What?!?! Our little David Mathews is a Christian!? That Fruedian slip let your secret out, Dave. And your really had us going yesterday, with your tripe about "..600,000 Christians slaughtered each other in the American civil war.."
Now that your secret's out, Dave, you'll have lots of Christians praying for you. In fact, when you and your posts here had us all believing your were a God-hating, America-hating, liberty-hating troll, you likely still had some Christians praying for your lost soul. After all, that's what being a Christian is all about: loving your neighbor, and seeking and saving the lost.
Word to the wise, though, Dave. If any of the radical muslim hordes are monitoring this site (like the MoveOn nitwits obviously are..), you may have a target on your back, now that they know you are a man (woman?..you haven't told us yet) of The Book. Better stay down there in your mother's basement where it's safe.
Jerry| 3.31.09 @ 12:05PM
Mozart,
There are plenty of us out here...we'll be (one of) the ones passing you in our 15-pax, gas-guzzling American-made van with pro-life bumper stickers, with our 7 young-uns in tow. AND, we'll be getting more 'people-miles' than the angry DM types who drive 55 mph (in the left lane) in their bumper-stickered '78 Volvo 240's & Prius' while screaming at all of the 'CAPITALISTS' who are passing them on the right.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 12:08PM
Sorry, Brutus-- he meant to type "Thank Dog." He's dyslexic.
Pat| 3.31.09 @ 12:16PM
Give a boy a set of socket wrenches and a car customizing magazine or two and then quickly stand back - later in life, they write about cars and buy 1968 GTO's to drive in Detroit's summer Dream Cruise. Are there any facts in Peters' analysis of GM or just another fan cheering for the home team and reliving boyhood car fantasies?
Late last summer, GM was assuring the Detroit Free Press they had no worries over cash flow amidst the then current gas crisis, none at all. They had more than enough cash to make it to 2010 when the new, electric Chevy Volt would hit the showrooms and start selling in the millions of units. By November, GM was screaming it would quickly go under if it didn't get an immediate taxpayer cash infusion, preferably $20 billion, thank-you very much.
So, what happened? First, GM has been struggling for a long time, they haven't made a profit in 5 years, they've managed to lose a cumulative $82 billion dollars. True, the SUV's and trucks may have met the market demand but they weren't sufficient to generate a profit or cash flow.
What's their marketing plan for the future? Truthfully, it's taxpayer bailout. And yes, it's that simple. Last fall, prior to the election, they played out a little comedy routine for the voters and the presidential candidates. They pretended to merger talks with Chrysler - if they merged, the resulting efforts to eliminate redundancy would have cost tens of thousands of jobs. Both Obama and McCain swallowed the bait and pledged their support to an automotive bailout, if elected.
GM's auditors, Deloitte and Touche, kept their mouths shut about the full extent of GM's financial troubles, relying on a technicality in the auditing rules to avoid reporting the truth to the public. The SEC asked no hard questions - why upset the general public around election time? Stockholders and bondholders were the victims in this legal swindle and the lawsuits will continue for years.
So, still feel sorry for GM? Don't. Wagoner and the GM boys weren't as smart as Bernie Madoff in their scheming. But they have managed to arrannge all future financing through the Bank of the American Taxpayer.
Paul from SA| 3.31.09 @ 12:30PM
Mr. Car Guy, I alway like your articles. Keep em coming. But why does GM need bailouts?
Bad quality and unions.
I'm with Ed on this, mostly. It's the poor quality. I don't believe the advertisements, the marketing, the reports, the statistics. I don't believe the media anymore when it comes to reporting American vehicle quality. I believe only what I have experienced myself. The union made cars are inferior in design and workmanship. I won't buy another American car until they repay me about $25,000 for the costs, repairs, the hassles, the towing, the waiting, the treatment from the dealership, the uncertainty, not having a car to drive, .... and for all the other people whom I had to inconvenience to pick me up and drop me off everytime my car broke down. And how about repaying me for the wasted union dues? Never again!
Plus, I will never buy a union-made car again. These unions exist for two reasons:
1) to destroy Republicans
2) to help elect Democrats (by acting as a campaign contribution collection system for libs)
Why would I want my money to be used for partisan political purposes?
When a new American car company opens that is non-union, manufactures high quality cars that I want, I will reconsider my boycott.
Pingback| 3.31.09 @ 12:31PM
general motors|everything about general motors links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 12:35PM
"The plain fact is people -- the market -- wanted these vehicles."
"Blaming GM -- or Toyota -- for supplying what the market asked for is asinine."
By Eric Peters on 3.31.09 @ 6:06AM
You forgot to mention that George Bush and the Republican Congress passes tax laws that favored buying these gas guzzlers.
Remember that? You could write off the entire purchase price in one year if the vehicle weighed over 6,000 lbs.
Yeah, consumers wanted these monsters, encouraged by Republican tax law. Plain and simple.
The George Bush legacy just keeps on giving. It'll be decades before we recover from his disastrous policies.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 12:45PM
"Remember that? You could write off the entire purchase price in one year if the vehicle weighed over 6,000 lbs. " No, harp. Nobody remembers that because it isn't true. The only way you can write off an SUV is if you use it in business, as I do.
The people wanted them and they still want them, now that gas is cheaper. There's an overstock of all vehicles right now, especially of the little ones. Americans just don't want them
You must think that people are truly stupid and easily manipulated. Ah well, perhaps they are. They voted for Obama just as they voted for Bush.
Tex| 3.31.09 @ 12:47PM
It's important to remember WHY some people want us all to switch to little European style cars. The root of it all is good intentions. Pollution is bad because people have to breathe it. Depleting fossil fuels is bad because running out could ultimately have negative impacts on people. So it's all about the people, really. To which I say:
I'm now pushing 200,000 miles on my second Chevy Suburban. I understand that my primary reason for owning this vehicle is at best a secondary reason for most drivers, but my family has experienced something most families don't. There is nothing Mr. Mathews, Ralph Nader, Barack Obama and Jane Fonda combined can say to change my mind.
The reason I no longer have my first Suburban is that it was totalled. A distracted truck driver ran a red light at between fifty and sixty miles an hour and t-boned my wife and two youngest children. The force of the collision knocked my wife and kids completely across the highway.
They were all seatbelted, with the youngest in an age-appropriate child safety seat. They suffered bruises and cuts, mostly from broken glass and were all back home a few hours after the accident having been treated and released at a local hospital.
There's no doubt in my mind that if they had been in a Prius, Fit or one of the other high mileage, low emission econoboxes, my surviving kids and I would be taking turns placing flowers on their graves.
I don't care if gas goes to $10 a gallon. I don't care how much guilt and abuse the anti-business wing of the environmentalist movement wants to heap on me. My family is going to ride in a vehicle that gives them a reasonable chance of surviving another driver's stupidity. Period. And don't give me the "Oh, but if all the other cars are tiny little bumpercars, you won't need that protection" argument. When the big trucks are off the road, let me know. (I know, I know ... don't give them any more anti-business economy-wrecking ideas)
I consider myself an environmentalist. I spend a lot of time in the great outdoors and strive to always leave it better than I found it. I pick up other people's trash. I recycle. I compost. I aid and abet my wife's near-pathological obsession with taking in stray animals. We're vegetarians.
But if the root of the automotive debate is really all about doing what's best for people, I'm going to protect the people I care most about and put them in vehicles that fare best in a collision.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 12:54PM
My Cherokee Sport was hit by a Honda Civic turning illegally across traffic. There is a groove along the rear panel. The Civic was carried away in a flatbed truck. I'm willing to pay a little more for gas to get increased safety.
If you want to choose otherwise, please do so. But don't take away my free choice to be a little safer and pay a very little more for fuel.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 12:57PM
"Remember that? You could write off the entire purchase price in one year if the vehicle weighed over 6,000 lbs. " No, harp. Nobody remembers that because it isn't true. The only way you can write off an SUV is if you use it in business, as I do. "
And the Big Dope posts more nonsense.
Bush and the GOP passed a tax law that allowed the entire cost to be written off in one year.
I would have thought that any sane man would realized that this would only apply to those who write off their vehicle. But I forgot I'm dealing with the Big Dope Leo who infers I meant everyone could write off their vehicle.
Do you try to be this stupid? Or does it just come naturally?
Ed| 3.31.09 @ 1:23PM
jharp, Thanks so much for your contribution. Using the terms Dope, stupid and nonsense always win the argument, don't they?
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 1:28PM
I must admit.. The new Vette is one sweet car.
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 1:33PM
jharp....
Hate to break your heart. I had a Chevy truck with a commerial plates. One a year I would tow a trailer, just so I could get my write off.
Insulting people gets you no where.
Unless you wish to join the David Mathews team.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 1:40PM
Watching jharp leap about like a ferret on steroids can be amusing, but it is tiring. Too bad he never shares his vast stores of wisdom and deep life experience to enlighten us.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 1:45PM
"I had a Chevy truck with a commerial plates. One a year I would tow a trailer, just so I could get my write off. "
And what does this have to do with George Bush and the Republican Congress changing the tax laws so buying a vehicle that weighed in excess of 6,000 lbs. could be written off in one year. Instead of the normal five years for a more fuel efficient vehicle.
I hate to break it to you. But your post was irrelevant to the discussion.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 1:47PM
Ed| 3.31.09 @ 1:23PM
"jharp, Thanks so much for your contribution. Using the terms Dope, stupid and nonsense always win the argument, don't they?"
You can't win an argument with a turnip.
I simply post the facts hoping someone learns something.
Indiana Alex| 3.31.09 @ 2:00PM
My family drives in a big orange Avalanche. Not because i got a tax cut for it, i didn't. Not because someone told me to buy it, that only works on liberals.
If they should get in an accident, they will have an opportunity to survive.
I drive a 2001 Subaru with 180,000 miles on it, and carry a lot of life insurance.
Paul from SA| 3.31.09 @ 2:07PM
The big question for GM is:
Where will they get the money to stay in business and repay these bailouts if nobody is buying [their] cars?
Even with new management, bankruptcy restructuring, new models, government warranties, new marketing loan gimmicks, how can they survive if they don't have sufficient income to stay alive, much less pay off debt?
Maybe they can win a lottery.
I agree with Eric Peters that people are "tapped out and terrified." Who would be stupid enough right now (unless super rich and financially secure for life) to take out a loan and buy a new car? Plus Obama is going to give everybody a federal discount in a few months or later. Why not wait, and wait, and wait.... and run your current vehicle into the ground and just buy a cheaper, high quality used car?
I'm anxious to see the March employment numbers and the first quarter GDP. Does anybody expect the economy to improve this year or next? I see a bleak economic future ahead with higher taxes on employers, income, capital gains, health care and energy, and massive inflation coming. Nope, it's time to hunker down and protect your income, property and wealth from the gov't.
Ryan| 3.31.09 @ 2:09PM
I drive an '06 Equinox, with 60k miles on it. Love the thing. It's a bit back-to-basics with a couple of frills (automatic seat, auto locks, auto windows, sunroof, leather) that I stole with just 8,000 miles on it.
No problems yet. I'd REALLY like to reach 200k miles on the thing.
I'm starting to hear some good stories about American-made vehicles going the distance (200k+ miles on F150's), and apparently US quality has come back in the last few years.
Honestly, when American car manufacturers can make a 30+ mpg SUV or truck that can pull a boat, they're going to make a TON of money....maybe. For now, they're not.
Mike| 3.31.09 @ 2:09PM
Many analysts believe that GM's cost structure, especially as relates to the so called "lagacy costs," is another major factor contributing to the malaise.
I would submit that those legacy costs are the direct result of years of ineffective managment, especially as maifested in an unwillingness to stand up to the over-grasping unions.
GM no longer even knows how to design, manufacture and market an automobile at a profit. Sadly, it has morphed into what is really nothing more than an incorporated welfare fund for the UAW.
Someday, after it emerges from Chapter 11, it may find itself "lean and mean." And who knows, maybe it will even be able to return something to its long-suffering shareholders. But I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon, and especially not while we all suffer under the dead hand of Obamanomics.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 2:10PM
Thanks for your comments jharp, and bless your heart.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 2:14PM
Back in the eighties, a lot of American cars got over 35 mpg. The Dodge Omni, for example, would get nearly 40 mpg on the highway. The main reason was that it was very light. Now, we have two conflicting standards-- a very high safety standard which demands heavier cars and a high mileage standard, which demands light cars. The car producers are whipsawed. They can produce less safe cars with tremendous mileage or safe cars with very modest mileage. Thy can't do both.
The proposed taxes on larger cars is a tax on families. I had four children and needed a car with space for six. If you ever tried to get even four adults into today's 35 mpg clown cars, you know the problem.
The liberal's answer is to have the government mandate the two impossibles; BOTH higher mileage and safer cars. Or they'll tell you to have a smaller family. In short, they'll run your life for you.
I have a radical idea. Do away with all the mandates on mileage and safety and produce the cars people actually want. I would choose a moderately heavy car with moderately worse mileage. My brother, who commutes a long way might choose a lighter car with moderately less safety. At any rate, it would be free choice in a free market, which is what always works in the short and long run. What have we come to when the obvious seems radical?
Clipper| 3.31.09 @ 2:19PM
The first law of economics is supply and demand, and capitalism is based on that law. The first law of socialism is to suspend the laws of economics. The average person buys cars based on what they can afford, size of family, what they need to haul,and weather and terrine where the vehicle will operate. No more, no less. Only people with enough disposable income could buy a car on a whim that didn't fit the above. The car companies knowing what the demand was, took care of the supply. Under the new socialism,there may be a supply, but will their be a demand? Cubans have driven cars built in the fifties for years. Will future Americans be forced to drive our cars of today fifty years from now?
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 2:42PM
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 2:14PM
"I have a radical idea. Do away with all the mandates on mileage and safety and produce the cars people actually want."
Leo, you have got to be one of the dumbest posters I have encountered.
Right on, do away with safety mandates. I'll bet we can get annual traffic fatalities up from the 40,000 we have today back up to 50,000 we had in the 1970's. Or who knows, maybe we could get fatalities nearing 100,000.
Good grief, son. Do you think before you post? Or are you really that dense?
ThinkTank| 3.31.09 @ 2:45PM
Making the 'wrong' vehicles has very little to do with it.
Detroit abandoned a quality-first approach a long time ago, and that's why they find themselves where they are today.
Brands like Oldsmobile and Chrysler used to evoke something. But these icons are so diminished now that consumers give them a wide berth.
My dad used to own a Chrysler dealership. Thank God he retired 10 years ago...
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 2:45PM
During my visits to Cuba, I was fascinated by how they managed to keep those old cars running. One problem was that when it rained, most of them would stop because of poor insulation on the wiring. Everyone would jump out of their cars and push them over to the side of the street to let the newer Soviet bloc cars through.
Maybe that is our future. Old cars and Polish Fiats.
Bob| 3.31.09 @ 3:05PM
If we did not give GM the billions they might be in bankrupcy by now and the CEO of GM would not be able to get the 23 million he got when he got fired. Far as I see he is taking tax payers money just like AIG.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 3:05PM
Jharp - here's a question - how many fatalities should the law permit? Is that the essence of your latest comments on Leo's comment on deregulating the auto industry?
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 3:06PM
Absolutely correct Bob - wonder if that was covered in the stimulus package?
David Govett | 3.31.09 @ 3:08PM
The last American car I bought was a Ford Escort in the 1970s. I can still smell that skunk of a car.
Bob| 3.31.09 @ 3:10PM
But they knew what they were stimulus package or did they
Anthony| 3.31.09 @ 3:13PM
Here's hoping that both David Mathews and jharp are crossing the street together when my SUV arrives on the scene. Hey morons, Congress with its tampering with CAFE standards created the SUV nitche. An if my car preference bothers you both so much, please have a tot on my tailpipe rather than the usual number you both suck on.
Curtis Rasmussen| 3.31.09 @ 3:21PM
Jharp trollboy:
You never talk about yourself. Who are you and why should anyone give a rat's ass about your petty, inane drivel?
Bram| 3.31.09 @ 3:24PM
Big Leo
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 3:26PM
Jhar - I recall the democratic congress of the day mandated the production of the Pinto, as well as the GM counterpart, the Vega. I don't recall Leo suggesting that.
Why would the present congress want to repeat that mistake?
Bram| 3.31.09 @ 3:28PM
Big Leo is right - safety and gas-mileage standards oppose each other. That is why none of the gas-powered small cars on the market will beat my old Civic.
The feds put another disadvantage on our car makers by making diesel technology next to impossible. For some reason, taxes on diesel fuel are higher than gasoline and the emissions are more restrictive. The Europeans love their diesels for the much higher gas mileage.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 3:31PM
The reality of choice is that we choose safety over mileage, or mileage over safety. As long as the risk is understood by everybody, the market will work to produce cars that will satisfy people on all locations on the safety - mileage spectrum. If we were all truly interested in mileage, we'd all drive motorscooters, and if we were all truly interested in safety, we'd drive Grand Cherokees. People are smart. They understand the trade offs between safety and mileage. All I am saying is let them choose without government interference. Sure, keep doing crash testing and publicize the results. Keep posting mileage figures. Keep the information flowing and let the people choose.
Bram| 3.31.09 @ 3:31PM
JHarp - are you certain that the Democrats voted unanimously against the current fuel and auto taxes and mileage regulations? I think you might want to check the records on that one. Then resume your trolling.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 3:37PM
Bram is right-- I grew up with diesel. We had a 1953 Mercedes-Benz that ran for twenty-five years and was still running at nearly 400k when the Benz dealer gave us a tremendous trade in on a new one. It was diesel, of course. I owned a Peugeot diesel that bought with 120 k on it that ran to 200 k before one of my kids wrecked it learning to drive. That was the cheapest car in maintenance and operating expense I ever owned, though I recall having to send to Spain for a water pump once. You could put a couple of large adults in the back with reasonable comfort, too. The high tax on diesel is counterproductive when you want to encourage good mileage, too.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 3:46PM
It's like a badge of honor. If jharp keeps harping on you, you know you've really said something convincing and reasonable. When he keeps on repeating his attacks, it means he's suffering a hypoglycemic attack because Mom hasn't delivered his afternoon Twinkie.
PolishKnight| 3.31.09 @ 3:57PM
David Mathews analogy of buying SUVs to buying "obesity" at McD's is thought provoking. He doesn't understand the difference between buying something versus the unintended consequences of the action. It's a sublime metaphor for liberalism:
Liberals "buy" into ending racism and sexism, protecting the environment, and protecting the middle class but the "ends justify the means" requires them to espouse bashing and scapegoating whites and men, destroying the environment with ethanol subsidies that waste money (and fuel), and undermine the middle class via high taxes and illegal immigration.
Perhaps his disconnect is because he thinks that _he_ should be able to eat the McD burget and SOMEONE else should get fat. And then when that doesn't work for him, he blames it on the "greedy" people who don't share.
It's amazing childishness and consequently that's why most kids embrace liberalism and many slowly grow out of it. Wisdom isn't about not making mistakes or believing in stupid things. It's about realizing when they have made a mistake and moving on and dealing with it.
David, you can rant and rave here and even cheer on a few elections but what does your agenda actually accomplish? Nothing that you can lay claim to (which is probably why you just want to bash us.)
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 3:58PM
If safety standards were junked, would car makers build unsafe cars? I'll answer this with another question. Why on earth would they do so? Of course, lighter cars would get better mileage and be a little less safe. We do that already, but only to a certain extent. The SUV haters would take away larger vehicles that we all agree are safer than the minicars we make under current standards.
In short, with heavier regulation we would get only the middle-- not particularly safe cars with not particularly good mileage.
If I want more safety, I will pay more for gas. If I want better mileage, I won't be as safe. You can't get both.
Frankly, if a person is too stupid to choose what degree of safety and mileage they want, they're probably too stupid to be driving.
Mark J. Goluskin | 3.31.09 @ 4:27PM
Well, our family has a Huyndai Tucson and we love it! We never, ever considered an American car when we bought the Tucson. And one of the real problems is that no American made car has the same resale value of a Toyota, Nissan, Honda, et al. And until GM, Chrysler and Ford make cars that
a) Americans want to buy and buy again.
b) Get the damn unions under control.
we will continue to have the Car Czar-In-Chief Obama making the decisions.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 4:28PM
"If safety standards were junked, would car makers build unsafe cars?"
Yes. Just like they used to before. Corvair anyone? Pinto?
"I'll answer this with another question. Why on earth would they do so?"
To make money.
Any other stupid questions?
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 4:53PM
Jharp
If safety standards were junked, would car makers build unsafe cars?"
Yes. Just like they used to before. Corvair anyone?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Care to prove that point.
this should be good.
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 5:00PM
Just a small part
_______________________
For 1961 the Corvair product line expanded, with the addition of a Monza sedan, station wagons, more engine horsepower, and a four-speed manual transmission. Also new was the Forward Control series, Corvair-based family vans and commercial panel vans and pickup trucks. These offered an inexpensive choice in the truck market. But the Ford Falcon and the other conventional compacts continued to outsell the Corvair due to their economical simplicity.
For 1962, Chevrolet introduced the Chevy II as a conventional compact car and directed the Corvair line toward sport and versatility. The exciting new Corvairs were the Monza convertible and the sporty Spyder with a turbocharged engine. This was the peak of Corvair development and sales, with a dozen different models of cars and trucks, and almost one-third of a million units sold. But General Motors could see that the market was moving in a new direction, with bigger, faster cars using powerful V-8 engines.
For 1963 Corvair held its course although the station wagons were discontinued. Corvair owners were loyal and enthusiastic, and Chevrolet promoted the sporty theme with clubs and driving events.
In 1964 the Corvair rear suspension was improved, and the engine was made slightly larger and more powerful. But in 1964 Ford introduced its own sporty compact, the Mustang, and sold one and a half million cars in the first two years. Chevrolet responded by introducing the 1965 Corvair, a second generation design. The new body style was again outstanding, and the rear suspension was completely redesigned to make the car more sure-footed. Corvair sales improved, but not nearly enough to compete with Mustang.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 5:02PM
Dustoff,
How in the hell do you prove something that hasn't happened?
And I noticed someone took down your post where you embarrassed yourself stating that the State of California allowed you to depreciate your vehicle in one year. And I asked you to explain.
You are all a bunch of gutless cowards.
This site, and Leo and Dustoff, among others is an embarrassment to our country.
The sheer stupidity of conservatives on dispaly for the whole world to witness. I'm embarrassed that you are Americans.
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 5:03PM
The real problem was the Mustang.. Not Ralph Nader. Which if you noticed. He never did prove his point on Corvairs.
++++++++++++
Also in 1965, Ralph Nader published Unsafe at Any Speed, a criticism of the U.S. auto industry's safety record. Only the first chapter was about the Corvair, but that is all that the reviewers and critics read. Nader's complaint was about the 1960-63 rear suspension design that was already discontinued, but the damage to Corvair's reputation was done. GM's mishandling of its response to Nader only made things worse.
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 5:07PM
Jharp
And I noticed someone took down your post where you embarrassed yourself stating that the State of California allowed you to depreciate your vehicle in one year. And I asked you to explain.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
So you can't read or see. Look for my post at 1:33pm. It's right there.
Jezzz you cry baby.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 5:08PM
jharp - you seem awful disappointed with the Americans who would otherwise share your utopia government defined civil rights and freedoms with responsibility, all in a new era where we are the change we've been waiting for.
May I vote for Palin for president in 2012, or will that election be unnecessary due to universally acclaimed re-election?
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 5:15PM
Dustoff,
"So you can't read or see. Look for my post at 1:33pm. It's right there. "
That is not the post that you claimed the State of California allowed you to dedcut your vehicle's cost in one year.
You are a dirty, rotten, lying, vile piece of scum. And a coward. And the site administrator is also a coward.
You must feel very proud to hide behind the deleting of your embarrassing and ignorant posts.
Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 5:21PM
Jharp
You are a dirty, rotten, lying, vile piece of scum. And a coward. And the site administrator is also a coward.
___________________
Jezzz Calm down.
I didn't remove zip.
You really need to get a grip before you have a heart attack or stroke out.
Moron| 3.31.09 @ 5:24PM
Obama has all of this under control. All he need do is offer the union employees more salary and better retirement benefits, and retirement should begin at 45, not 50!!! Borrow the money and pay it back next generation. Whay is that so difficult for the neo-cons to understand???
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 5:27PM
"I didn't remove zip."
Maybe you didn't. But someone did.
And you lied and referenced another post that was still up knowing it had nothing to do with your idiotic claim that the State of California allowed you to deduct the cost of your vehicle in one year. An obvious lie.
I'll stick to my words. You are dirty, rotten, lying, vile piece of scum. And a coward. And the site administrator is also a coward.
Oh, and you're stupid too.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 5:46PM
jharp - for variety hold down the shift key and hit the top row of keys, like this:
#*(&*&^#(&^%*&%
If it's good enough for Wile E Coyote, it's good enough for us humans.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 5:58PM
Dustoff is of course right about the Corvair. Your discussion of the history of that interesting and economical car was well done. The early problems with suspension were cleared up as soon as they became apparent. There wasn't much of a problem to begin with. The Pinto was just a design nightmare from the beginning. Since the problems were not apparent until the cars actually had a track record, it's hard to see how they would have been eliminated.
Despite improvements, the publicity over the Corvair hurt GM, and the problems with the Pinto hurt Ford. That's what inspired them to come up with better designs, not the then nonexistent government regulations. Creation of an inferior product forces that product out of the market, not government regulations.
The planned increase of the COLA standards on mileage will make heavier, safer cars more expensive and harder to buy, since the whole fleet would have to meet heightened COLA standards. That's an example of government regulation making cars less safe, not more.
93Metro| 3.31.09 @ 6:03PM
There's not many American cars that have good resale value because only an idiot would buy any kind of car with 125,000+ miles for 75% of original value.....honda/subaru lovers....... Got a 1999 Dodge van with 185,000 miles and still driving nicely.......you folks trashing American vehicles need to get a grip....
bernardo| 3.31.09 @ 6:16PM
I suggest that everyone go up near the top and read Mr. Matthews' comments. Then decide if those of us who call him and those on the left like him fascists are exaggerating. As to GM, its problem is not that it did not make the same mix of cars as the Japanese. It is that it did not make cars as good as those of the Japanese, particularly from the late 1970’s on. GM would be doing fine if it still had 50% market share. That is does not is not due to anything except the fact that competitors delivered a better and more desirable product. GM is supposed to have some fine vehicles now. It is sad that it may be too late. GM was once a great company.
93Metro| 3.31.09 @ 6:21PM
jHarp sez, "The George Bush legacy just keeps on giving. It'll be decades before we recover from his disastrous policies."
Wow, you can see the future? Can you tell us how long it will take our children and grandchildren to take care of the debt that Omama and his minions just put them into?
Jim| 3.31.09 @ 7:26PM
As usual the paid poster troll boy jharp offers nothing. The mindless babbling of a lefist moron.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 7:28PM
"Can you tell us how long it will take our children and grandchildren to take care of the debt that Omama and his minions just put them into? "
A rough guess would be about the same amount of time that it will take to take care of the doubling of the debt that we have George Bush to thank for.
Only difference is Obama had no choice. Our economy is in a catastrophic condition (thanks to Bush and the GOP),
And also unlike George Bush's wasteful spending, we'll actually have something to show for Obama's spending other than 4,50o dead soldiers and 30,000 maimed and wounded. That's what we got for the trillions he pissed away in the deserts of Iraq for nothing.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 7:29PM
Jim says, "As usual the paid poster troll boy jharp offers nothing. The mindless babbling of a leftist moron. " Shhhh! The l'il feller is all tuckered out and fell asleep. Don't wake him.
93Metro| 3.31.09 @ 7:41PM
"President Bush oversaw budget deficits between $300 billion and $400 billion while fighting a war. Even after (assumed) peace and prosperity, President Obama would run permanent deficits between $500 billion and $700 billion."
-Brian M. Riedl
93Metro| 3.31.09 @ 7:48PM
BTW, jharp, had you ever noticed that the economy had started to trend slightly downward in the last year of the Clinton stay in the Whitehouse? Add a little 9/11, Enron, MCI/Worldcom, and a few other things, I'd say there was a little reason or two for the way things played out under Bush. I'll be that you didn't know that Enron boy Kenneth Lay was on the Heinz Foundation's Board during all the Enron stuff. It all roses on the Left, my friend. Greed is playing out on both sides.
Quit acting like it isn't.......
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 7:52PM
"President Bush oversaw budget deficits between $300 billion and $400 billion while fighting a war. Even after (assumed) peace and prosperity, President Obama would run permanent deficits between $500 billion and $700 billion."
-Brian M. Riedl
And your point?
The war was Bush's war of choice and has been a total disaster.
And the economy Bush handed off to Obama, also a total disaster.
And most economists agree, the only option is a government stimulus, ala FDR.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 7:58PM
jharp - If you don't use paragraphs, you're prior post could violate most of the rules of logic in a few short sentences. You've got the appeal to authority, fallacy, and a lightly veiled ad hominem carried over from prior posts.
Brevity could be the soul of whatever your point is.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 8:04PM
I also like this line;
"Our economy is in a catastrophic condition (thanks to Bush and the GOP)"
Really? Read any history lately? Try something from before 1950. Our present situation is small beer by comparison, though that approach doesn't sit too well with the fear mongering crowd.
And here we all thought that was the GOPs problem, what with repealing social security and reopening sweatshops and what not.
Good thing there won't be any homeless for the next three and half years.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 8:07PM
"BTW, jharp, had you ever noticed that the economy had started to trend slightly downward in the last year of the Clinton stay in the Whitehouse?"
Yes, I noticed.
"Add a little 9/11, Enron, MCI/Worldcom, and a few other things, I'd say there was a little reason or two for the way things played out under Bush."
It truly was a national tragedy in more ways than one that Bush ignored the warnings of 911 and allowed the worst terrorsi attack in U.S. history on his watch.
"I'll be that you didn't know that Enron boy Kenneth Lay was on the Heinz Foundation's Board during all the Enron stuff."
So what? Are you on dope or something? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
"It all roses on the Left, my friend. Greed is playing out on both sides."
No. it's not all roses on the left. The difference being the lefties call out their leaders when they do stupid things against the best interest of the U.S.
The wingnuts, on the other hand, continue to defend the disastrous policies of George Bush still today.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 8:07PM
"And most economists agree, the only option is a government stimulus, ala FDR. " Since there is no poll of economists, there can be no reasonable statement that most economists agree. In fact, many economists, including Nobel Prize winners, disagree and think the so-called stimulus is a disaster. Secondly, Bush's deficits were declining over the last couple years, and Obama's increase for the entire foreseeable future, even considering a 4 to 5% increase in GNP, which many economists think is unlikely. Many economists and historians believe that FDR PROLONGED the depression by his ill-thought out programs, since the rest of the world came out of the depression much sooner because of more restrained fiscal policies.
Also, the war is going well.
Why I bother to contradict your vague assertions, fallacies, and personal attacks is the only real mystery here.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 8:09PM
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 8:04PM
I also like this line;
"Our economy is in a catastrophic condition (thanks to Bush and the GOP)"
Really? Read any history lately? Try something from before 1950. Our present situation is small beer by comparison, though that approach doesn't sit too well with the fear mongering crowd.
And here we all thought that was the GOPs problem, what with repealing social security and reopening sweatshops and what not.
Good thing there won't be any homeless for the next three and half years.
___________________________________
What in the sam hell are you taking about? Put the bong away and try again.
ben| 3.31.09 @ 8:18PM
I drive a 2007 Chevy Impala - a full sized sedan. I get 37+mpg on the highway and 25+ in town. I used to drive a Metro that got 37mpg highway and 28-30 in town. The difference is that my new Chevy has a 3.5l V6 and the Metro had a 1.3l 4Cyl. My new car has plenty of room, cruise, power windows and locks, and a plethora of other options while my Metro had none. Is the Metro the better choice because it's smaller and considered a gas saver? Is it still a better choice if it gets the same mpg as a full sized guzzler? I bought the Chevy Metro because of price and got 7 years ,130,000 miles out of it with no major problems. That's why I went back to Chevy for my Impala - I've been very pleased with the quality and durability of their products in the past. The problem is the economy not GM's products. I don't know about you libs but I'd much rather have a car with room, power and luxuries than some cramped little gas sipper that doesn't actually save any gas. And since it's my money I should get to choose what kind of car I want to buy whether it's a Truck, SUV, or some eCONomy car.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 8:21PM
The root of our current economic problem is very simple; there is a huge load of toxic debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This started a domino effect in the financial industry which shut down credit, making it hard to buy a car or house. This hurt the construction and auto industry, both major players in the economy.
The reason for the toxic assets was that Freddie and Fannie were ordered by Congress to extend mortgages to people who would not ordinarily qualify for them. Democratic congresses voted for them, and Democratic congressmen received huge contributions to their campaign fund and in at least two cases, sweetheart mortgages.
Bush pointed out the overextension of Freddie and Fannie, but was reassured by Barney Frank and others that the institutions were sound and a good investment.
This whole problem was caused by political interference in the financial processes, since none of those toxic mortgages would have been extended without the DEMAND by Congress that they do so.
I realized it was absurd before the crash when I was offered a three quarters of a million dollar mortgage on my income. It would have been almost half of my whole monthly income to make the payments, taxes and insurance. Absurd! I couldn't afford such a thing!
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 8:36PM
Geez jharp - try to keep up.
First - it's Sam Hill, and second, we're just gigging you for the language, logic, and deportment lessons they give over at dkos and moveonedotorg or wherever you're cutting and pasting this stuff from.
You're on the script OK, but it helps if you know something by the time you get to the second paragraph of whatever you're writing about.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 8:37PM
Also - I don't think you've called any of us "rethugs". Might want to throw that in as well.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 8:38PM
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 8:21PM
"The root of our current economic problem is very simple; there is a huge load of toxic debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Again the dumbest wingnut on this board posts utter BS.
Do the math you friggin retard. Fannie and Freddie were and are peanuts compared to AIG, Bear Stears, Merrill, Citi, Bank of America, Wachovia, JPM, Lehman, Goldman Sachs, Moragan Stanley, and the other 25 banks THAT FAILED.
"This whole problem was caused by political interference in the financial processes,"
And the dumbass gets another exactly wrong. It was as a result of a lack of political interference. (i.e. regulation)
You are a stupid, stupid man Leo. And until you learn you can expect to where you are now. On top of the trash pile of rejected losers.
The American people ain't buying your BS anymore.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 8:57PM
"I don't know about you libs but I'd much rather have a car with room, power and luxuries than some cramped little gas sipper that doesn't actually save any gas."
Speaking only for me. I like a vehicle that is simple and reliable. No cruise, no power seat, no power mirrors, none of those gadgets. And don't care about horsepower either.
Except maybe power windows and locks.
And since I'm a big guy I do like something big. Right now I have a Dodge Minivan and I'm very happy with it. It is very functional, nice to drive, reasonable on gas, great for the golf clubs, family trips, and fishing.
Best car I ever had was a Camry Wagon. Paif 16,800 for it '92 and never had one problem over 185,000 miles. And sold it sight unseen for 3,000.
And after all that, I really am a pickup truck guy.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 9:02PM
When a lender offers me a mortgage that is around half of my income, the system is broken.
jharp, explain to us how our regulations which are germane to our country only produced economic collapse all over the world. Our regulations are stricter than many of the overseas countries, which is why a lot of the economic focus shifted to London.
Sorry, harpo. The institutions you mentioned have problems because of toxic debt, not lack of regulation. They were under the same basic regulations they were under the Clinton administration, which I'm sure you just loved. Tell us how the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations were changed under Bush. You can't, because they weren't.
Of course, you could prove your opposing thesis to us. But you won't, because you can't.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 9:02PM
jharp - that's quite a list for Leo to go look into. Care to share some of the math you seem fond of? Have any clue about the distinctions between mortgage, commercial, and investment banking, and between them an insurance? Any ideas on what investments each made, respectively, which caused their respective problems, and in which order and to what degree? Then, which regulators or lack thereof, affects each?
Do the math yourself, starting with Fannie/Freddie then through AIGs CDOs and on to the investors. If anything Leo misstates the "political interference" - it was "political finance", to which the democrats propose a solution of , you got it, political finance with a healthy dose of political automaking.
Might work, might not.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 9:17PM
"The institutions you mentioned have problems because of toxic debt, not lack of regulation."
More utter lunacy form the dumbest guy on this site.
Toxic debt? What the hell are you talking about?
By far the biggest culprit in this entire affair is AIG. The guys who used their top credit rating to insure toxic assets without the resources to do so.
And you guys are too damn dumb for me to go to the trouble of providing the numbers.
Big Dumb Leo couldn't even understand the Wyeth judgment after I made it clear to him 7 times.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 9:24PM
So we're dumb. Enlighten us. If you can. I doubt you can, because you couldn't even extract the meaning from one sentence of the Wyeth judgment.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 9:31PM
What "toxic assets" did AIG insure? Were the assets "toxic" before or after AIG insured them? If before, who made them "toxic" and how?
Just asking.
Aaron| 3.31.09 @ 9:47PM
jharp,
Unbelievable. The list of companies you spew forth are liberal run, look at the political contributions. This comes down to one of the most overused liberal lies, that Republicans control the business world and represent greed.
Almost every post you make contains hateful and cruel language laced with personal attacks. Is it not possible for you to carry on a logical discussion without using terms such as "dumbass", "loser" or (this one is creative) "Big Dumb Leo"?
bernardo| 3.31.09 @ 10:13PM
Mr. Harp above suggested that Obama would need to end our current economic troubles the way it was done under FDR. I certainly hope that does not happen. We do not need a global war.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 10:18PM
Exactly, bernardo-- where are the Nazis when you need them? Demned unreliable types. Foreigners, you know.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 10:33PM
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 9:31PM
"What "toxic assets" did AIG insure?"
The ones the bailout money was spent to cover. Home mortgages that had little to no chance of ever being repaid.
And 100's of billions of dollars worth.
And yeah, they were toxic before, during, and after AIG insured them. Only no one knew (other than AIG) that they were most likely worthless.
I'm going to watch the NY 20 Congressional race. And it's tighter than you can believe. In a district with a 75,000 GOP registered voter advantage.
God would it be sweet to win this one.
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 10:51PM
Correct Jharp! And where did those "toxic assets" come from? (Hint - Fannie and Freddie)
And what was Leo's original point?
PS - Did Fannie and Freddie know they were worthless? Inquiring minds want to know!
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 10:52PM
The Dem wins in NY 20 - you must be so proud.
We GOP types are so humiliated.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 11:07PM
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 10:52PM
"The Dem wins in NY 20 - you must be so proud."
"We GOP types are so humiliated."
As you should be. You had a 75,000 registered voter advantage. Heck. Of. A. Job.
Big Leo| 3.31.09 @ 11:15PM
Wrong as usual, jharp. They haven't counted the absentee ballots yet, and won't until April 13th. Right now the Dem is ahead by a smashing 81 votes.
To quote the AP, "There were more than 10,000 absentee ballots issued and about 6,000 returned by Tuesday, none of which was to be counted Tuesday night, according to state elections officials. New York agreed to count overseas absentee ballots until April 13."
Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 11:49PM
Big Leo - don't spoil his fun. His math is bad enough and his historical sense is non-existent. At least let him feel like he won something. Besides, it's the last election for this district before it reappears somewhere in Texas following the 2010 census, presuming the administration can organize it - I have my doubts.
jharp| 3.31.09 @ 11:58PM
"They haven't counted the absentee ballots yet, and won't until April 13th. Right now the Dem is ahead by a smashing 81 votes.
To quote the AP, "There were more than 10,000 absentee ballots issued and about 6,000 returned by Tuesday, none of which was to be counted Tuesday night, according to state elections officials. New York agreed to count overseas absentee ballots until April 13." :"
I'm aware Big Dumb Leo.
And I stand by post. You should be humiliated.
In a district with 75,000 more Republican registered voters you are behind by 60 votes.
What is it Leo? Are you proud of your showing tonight?
Holy smokes. Your stupidity is endless.
Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 12:07AM
You're right, Interested Conservative. It's like telling a small child there's no Santa Claus. Oh dear, I've done it again.
Klaus Eisenberg| 4.1.09 @ 12:09AM
A Word of Explanation.
It has recently been brought to my attention that some members of this rehabilitation community have been posting to your blog site in an not altogether welcome manner. This, I regret to inform those who have raised the issue, is an unforeseen consequence of an experimental revision of a basic treatment protocol for some of our patients who have profound difficulties with conventional societal conventions and disciplines.
The treatment protocol revision provided selected patients with access to the internet in order to study their ability to constructively interact with exterior reality in a virtual manner. While evaluation of this protocol modification has still not provided enough essential data to validate its underlying premise it has resulted in encouraging results in areas of reduced need for aggressive medication and physical restraint to prevent self-destructive conduct.
It is problematical that any of the subjects of this revised protocol will return to the general population any time soon but with continued progress in the study and treatment of their generally hostile and anti-social proclivities there may, indeed, be some hope for the future of other individuals so afflicted.
We realize that their intrusion on these web sites can be discomforting and we try, within the limits imposed by our limited staff and resources, to achieve accumulation of useful data without unduly aggravating those who unknowingly have been assisting in this important project.
Your understanding and tolerance of these obviously unwelcome comments to your website are, and will be, deeply appreciated since they are in the interest of helping these unfortunate individuals and others who may be similarly afflicted in the future.
Sincerely,
Klaus Eisenberg, MD
Director of External Affairs
Marymoor Clinic
Jim| 4.1.09 @ 12:24AM
Jharp,
Everyone knows you are aware of nothing. You are the one who should be humiliated, groveling at the teleprompter messiah's anus.
Tell us what it is like to be an unthinking, mindless drone, dependent on big brother for survival.
jharp| 4.1.09 @ 12:46AM
"Tell us what it is like to be an unthinking, mindless drone, dependent on big brother for survival."
All right.
I started my own business after graduating from Ohio State with a Bachelor of Science in accounting.
And 26 years later things are going pretty well.
Never have taken a dime form the government and have paid my fair share of taxes.
And I have watched in disgust as the GOP has led our country to near ruin as jackasses such as yourself have cheered them on.
How about you?
Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 12:50AM
Dear Dr. Eisenberg:
I understand your problem and sympathize. We had a similar situation in my psychology lab some years back when we ran out of funding for rats and had to use prisoners instead.
We appreciate your dedication to healing the miserable sufferers whose deviance we experience here.
One question: is it still all right to poke them with sharp sticks for our own amusement?
Sincerely,
Big Leo. D.D.
double gads| 4.1.09 @ 1:29AM
A poster above nailed it. The new vehicles are anti-family. GM did well selling family-useful vehicles. The Pruis and it's ilk are rolling tin boxes. Put kids in that? Spam in a can. The "approved" cars are two-seaters, the back seats are just right for a bag of groceries, not human beings. Fill it up with the maximum occupancy and the car slumps with the weight. They may say 4, but it's really truly only good for two or better yet one person. Evidently, no children exist in the world of the designer, the environmentalists, the politicians who pander to this. The SUVs came about because the station wagon was destroyed by politically-motivated constraints, and the mini-van was the replacement. Instantly, the mini-van (loophole)was then deemed "wrong," and targeted for crippling constraints so the SUV (loophole) filled the vacuum. Families need sturdy cars with enough room to carry kids safely and reliably. The SUV is the best out there for that. See the little sedans stuck along snowed-in highways? Dozens of them for miles, hung up on pathetically little mounds of snow. Not an SUV or pickup in the lot of them stranded. Cut all the crap about Americans being somehow "backward." Enough of the name-calling and put-downs. It's all about wrecking families and enterpreneurs. Approved cars are too small for more than two kids, max. By lawmaking, kids can't sit in the front, they have to sit in the back .. and the child seats - states keep raising the bar, five years, eight years ; and car seats get recalled every five minutes it seems for some flaw or another.
The second customer that is being screwed is the independent contractors. These people rely on getting their tools and materials TO the worksite. And they always have to cultivate new customers, so the work site is always different Pickups and small trucks are their work horses, usually with a trailer attached, their rolling workshop. These crappy cars cannot meet the needs of these people. High fuel prices kills their businesses. But snotty Liberals who support expensive rinky-dink cars want their tiled floors, their plumbing first class, siding up, pools dug for low prices ... who's supposed to do this if contractors can afford to get to the job or they have vehicles that can't pull the weight?
What IS it with the Left, how bitterly they hate children, families and entrepreneurs? The worlds' most prosperous people in history and they are obsessed with destroying it all, using any avenue available to wreck, cripple and demotivate? I don't care how any other person wants to live his or her life and buy a tincan car cause it makes them all glowy inside. That's their money. Why are they so creepy obssessed with forcing millions of other people who are minding their own business, to do what they do? See the headlines today? "We're past the limit for global population!" Says WHO? From the same people who quickly dodge the reality of the Polar winters, no sunlight for 6 months a year means the poles will never ever be warm, they melt as much as they can during the brief summers and refreeze on schedule at stunning temperatures of negative -80 F. every year and hmmm the sea levels never rise. And what does this all mean? Too many people, too many children? Pol Pot's Killing Fields? It's that pathetic .... and disturbing. Listen to these people whine about the burden and hassle they endure raising one child or two, max. Nothing in human history compares to their suffering. They put up signs like, "Raising kids is like being pecked to death by a chicken." And they wonder why their kids hate them back. But strangling the auto market to provide "efficient" cars is one means by which one can control family sizes. A family of six would need two Prius cars to get them anywhere, but only one mini van or SUV.
Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 1:37AM
You've described the situation exactly, double gad. If the COLA standards were applied without the SUV loophole, there would only be a tiny number of cars produced each year that could be used by a family, and the pickups and SUVs needed for business and in extreme rural areas like mine would be priced astronomically.
It's part of the whole anti-life mindset of the liberal aristocracy.
Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 1:42AM
. . . furthermore, the little cars are for little lonely people with no friends to go places with. When we get together with a few people to go to the city or to go fishing in the Sea of Cortez, we'd have to take two or even three little cars to comfortably get there. And we'd miss the fellowship of the trip. Little cars for lonely people-- and forget having a family. Little cars for a death-worshipping elite.
Shyster| 4.1.09 @ 1:53AM
Sorry Harpo,
You're entirely clueless. Stop repeating the endless democrat talking points and look up the facts for yourself. It would be a good exercise for you.
Obama is spending more than the prior 43 Presidents...combined!
You might also want to take a few "English as a second language" courses. I'm sure your Mom will let you out of the basement and give you a ride to the local community college. Just keep your options available as you daydream while flipping burgers.
Do some original research, Harpo. As it stands now, you're just a socialist sock puppet.
At least graduate to "puppet first class".
Shyster| 4.1.09 @ 2:09AM
One more thing, Harpo,
The fact that you're challenged intellectually, and can't reason for yourself, doesn't mean that arguments posted here are "stupid" simply because you're ill-equiped to respond to them.
Your resort to grade-school name calling when you are incapable of responding in the arena of ideas, hardly reflects badly on the posters here...rather, it points to a glaring lack of education, intellectual ability and to the mindless adherence of a "sheep" to its masters.
Darren | 4.1.09 @ 5:48AM
Please read:
USA: The Iron Fist of Fascism (General Motors)
http://open.salon.com/blog/darren_wolfe/2009/03/30/usa_the_iron_fist_of_fascism_general_motors
tertle| 4.1.09 @ 6:20AM
I have 2 Buick LeSabres, an 89 and a 92, both with over 300K miles. They will haul six people and all of their luggage 80 mph uphill and still get 30MPG highway. GM had the drivetrain to be competitive, but they only stuck it in cars nobody under 65 would buy new, insisting on putting their horrendous 2.8L derived V6s in any youthful car.
Sarah| 4.1.09 @ 8:54AM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sarah
http://www.craigslistposter.info
galois| 4.1.09 @ 12:05PM
Capitalism , as has been practiced since the beginning of the industrial revolution, has been headed toward death and may now be on it's death bed. Since capitalism relies on sustained growth and expansion , it is mathematically UNSUSTAINABLE. Other sustainable mechanisms and economies must be developed to replace it. Resource and hence population limits demand the abandonment of profit motivated economies.
rationality| 4.1.09 @ 8:15PM
It's time to inject a bit of rationality in the discussion.
1) The single most important difference between the US auto market and the European market (which is often held up as an exemplar) is not the narrow roads, higher speed limits, or the superior engineering capabilities and global sensitivities of the Europeans. It is the cost of fuel. Assuming two families with an income of X and a desire to spend a maximum of Y percent on personal transportation, the American family will have more to spend on hardware because it has a lower expected fuel cost component of its annual spend. And spending more on hardware means buying shadowbox volume (think length times width times height) and cubic inches. Fuel in Europe costs more not because it is more highly refined or cleaner but because it is taxed more heavily. When I lived in England gasoline cost about four times as much as it cost in the US. The only reason why the average car in Europe is not even smaller is that a very high percentage of businesses provide cars and fuel to their senior employees. The ones with the Audis, BMWs, and Mercedes are almost always not paying their own way, at least not directly.
2) American consumers may be fatter, on average, but they are not stupid. When the cost of gas at the pump reached and passed $4 per gallon last summer, the papers were full of stories about Priuses being sold off the truck to the highest bidder and the plight of SUV buyers who visited showrooms only to discover that their vehicles were worth far less than they owed on them. Even though oil prices have settled down the memory of the spike will linger and affect buying habits for a while. But even at $4 per gallon the expected fuel cost for our hypothetical family still leaves them far more to spend on hardware than the corresponding European family. And they will.
3) SUVs are station wagons with a better view of the road. The reason why Detroit makes them and not smaller cars is a perfect illustration of the law of unintended consequences. Our Congress did two things to help destroy Detroit: it set lower CAFE mileage standards on light trucks so that our plumbers, farmers, and contractors wouldn't suffer in stoplight drag races, and they slapped a tariff on imported light trucks that was supposed to provide the Big Three with some breathing room as they retooled to meet demand for clones of the Civic, Accord, and Corolla. These actions created a profit window that the bean-counter managers in Detroit spotted and acted upon: They could give customers the shadow box volume and cubic inches they wanted without paying a CAFE fine, and they could do so with cost-disadvantaged UAW labor. For a long time they could take an F-150, add a roof and about $10,000 worth of carpet, leather, and creature comforts, and sell it for $20,000 more. Given the way the cards lay on the table this was not a stupid thing for Detroit to do--risky, perhaps, but not stupid.
4) The recent talk about bankruptcy misses the point that for all intents and purposes the Big Three are already bankrupt. Like the steel companies of the 1980s, they have accumulated obligations to past and present employees (and, uniquely to the auto companies, their franchised dealers) that vastly exceed their expected cash flows under any reasonable scenario of demand. When times were good, they could hide that reality with some flashy games on leases and fleet sales and some dreamy talk about BRIC. But when the air came out of the domestic demand balloon they could hide no longer.
Trackback| 4.1.09 @ 9:31PM
The American Spectator : Wasting General Motors, on general, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
double gads| 4.2.09 @ 11:51PM
Ah ha! SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT appears up there as the crux of the criticism of capitalism. Third World Development types came out of schooling with this SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT schitck. It means no dams or electricity or any modern advancement for poor villagers so they can stay photogenically "rustic." They were only allowed modifications of their wood-burning mud stoves, no electricity for electric stoves or even propane stoves. Village woman could continue to die young from overwork! So, now Americans are, for no good reason, to give up 5 thousand years of human advancements , and especially the last 100 years to go that route, too. What else to call it, but pure hatred of human beings, of any pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?
Steve B| 4.9.09 @ 2:49PM
Actually, the demand for SUVs dropped drastically when gas prices skyrocketed and GM was not able to adapt to new market conditions fast enough. They did not have the kind of cars that American's wanted. Toyota/Honda did.
Also, people think that Toyota and Honda have higher quality cars; there's some truth to this. The Japanese, in general, are quality fanatics. This perception (true or not) has haunted American car companies for decades.
I blame this on the way the company was run. If they had competed and produced great cars and had adapted to changing market conditions, they would not be in this mess.
These companies were not run by people with good business sense. If they spent all that energy on their business instead of lobbying the government (to reduce cafe standards, etc), they might have had great cars and been competitive with Honda and Toyota. In fact, maybe even ahead of honda and toyota. They should have lived up the American sterotype: Americans are innovative. Perhaps they were just too big and prefer to rest on innovations they made decades ago.
CJ | 9.15.09 @ 12:15PM
Let me get this straight…
GM is really controlled by the Government (And is now known as Government Motors) And they still have the over paid union sucking them dry!
I would never buy another vehicle from Chrysler or GM
And one other thing……………That guy, the CEO on TV, He looks more like a used car salesman then a CEO!
Forget about Government motors and by from a real Car company….FORD
CJ
jhgg| 11.30.09 @ 4:05AM
TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac
Pingback| 3.17.10 @ 1:04PM
Uniego Filme Online - The American Spectator : Wasting General Motors links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: