Detroit is a victim of capitalism, moron.
And here everyone was thinking it was greedy unions and shitty cars.......
Detroit s decline is a distinctively capitalist failure Richard Wolff Comment is free The Guardian
Run forest, run.
“
US automakers could enjoy profit margins of $10,000 per SUV(*), while losing a few hundred dollars on a compact car. For instance, the Ford Excursion could net the company $18,000, while they could not break even with the Ford Focus unless the buyer chose options. This led to Detroit’s big three automakers focusing resources and design on SUVs over small cars (small cars were sold mainly to attract young buyers with inexpensive options and to increase their fleet average fuel economies to meet federal standards). The high wages of unionized workers in the United States and Canada (members of the UAW and CAW, respectively), compared to non-union workers such as that of Toyota, meant that it was unprofitable to have them build small cars. The General Motors Arlington, Texas factory where rear-wheel drive cars were built, such as the Chevrolet Caprice, Buick Roadmaster, and Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was converted to truck and SUV production, putting an end to full-size family station wagon and overall terminating production of rear-wheel drive full-size cars. As a result of the shift in the Big Three’s strategy, many long-running cars like the Ford Taurus, Buick Century, and Pontiac Grand Prix eventually fell behind their Japanese competition in features and image (relying more upon fleet sales instead of retail and/or heavy incentive discounts), some being discontinued.”
(*) ~
Sport utility vehicle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
There are a number of definitions for an SUV.
[6] Most
government regulations simply have categories for "off-highway vehicles," which in turn are lumped in with pickup trucks and minivans as "light trucks."
[6] The auto industry has not settled on one definition.
[6]
Nevertheless, four-wheel-drive SUVs are considered
light trucks in North America (and two-wheel-drive SUVs up to the 2011 model year
[7]) where
they were regulated less strictly than passenger cars under two laws in the United States, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act for fuel economy, and the Clean Air Act for emissions.
[8] Starting in
2004, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (
EPA) began to hold sport utility vehicles to the same tailpipe emissions standards as cars.[9]
~
Cars Trucks Buses and Nonroad Equipment Plain English Guide to The Clean Air Act US EPA
"The Clean Air Act required EPA to issue a series of rules to reduce pollution from vehicle exhaust, refueling emissions and evaporating gasoline. As a result, emissions from a new car purchased today are well over 90 percent cleaner than a new vehicle purchased in 1970. This applies to SUVs and pickup trucks, as well.
Beginning in 2004, all new passenger vehicles - including SUVs, minivans, vans and pick-up trucks - must meet more stringent tailpipe emission standards. This marks the first time that light-duty trucks, including SUVs, pickups, and minivans are subject to the same national pollution standards as cars. As more of these cleaner vehicles enter the national fleet, harmful emissions will drop dramatically."
~
History of General Motors - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"After gaining market share in the late 1990s and making enormous profits, General Motors stock soared to over $80 a share. From
June 1999 to September 2000, the Federal Reserve, in a move to quell potential inflationary pressures created by, among other things, the stock market,
made successive interest rate increases, credited in part for "plunging the country into a recession."[26][27] The recession and the volatile stock market
created a pension and benefit fund crisis at General Motors and many other American companies. General Motors' rising retiree health care costs and Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) fund deficit prompted the company to enact a broad restructuring plan. Although GM had already taken action to fully fund its pension plan, its OPEB fund became an issue for its corporate bond ratings. GM had expressed its disagreement with the bond ratings; moreover, GM's benefit funds were performing at higher than expected rates of return.
Then, following a $10.6 billion loss in 2005, GM acted quickly to implement its restructuring plan. For the first quarter of 2006 GM earned $400 million, signaling that a turnaround had already begun even though many aspects of the restructuring plan had not yet taken effect.
[...]
In 2006, GM offered buyouts to hourly workers to reduce future liability; over 35,000 workers responded to the offer, well exceeding the company's goal. GM gained higher rates of return on its benefit funds as a part of the solution. Stock value began to rebound - as of October 30, 2006, GM's
market capitalization was about $19.19 billion. GM stock began the year 2006 at $19 a share, near its lowest level since 1982,
as many on Wall Street figured the ailing automaker was bound for bankruptcy court. But GM remained afloat and the company's stock in the
Dow Jones industrial average posted the biggest percentage gain in 2006.
[32]"
2008 recession was the straw that broke the camels back...
GM was /not/ exactly allowed to work on a capitalist system. US government special interest regulations and higher pay rates in the US (in part pushed by unions, but as we can see by today's public outcry to get $15/h flipping burgers, more a US greed mentality, than due specifically to greedy Unions,) made it impossible for them to remain both, profitable as an American based company, and competitive with foreign car producers.
In my mind, it makes no sense to save a company who can't keep current and profitable in the US, saving them was stupid, but it serves a socialistic agenda - we the tax payers own like 63% of GM via stocks, and our government, not the market, dictate what they will build now - A company that cannot stay afloat if they remain an American company.[/QUOTE]
No true Scotsman all day, every day.
