US automakers are "deserving" of $50 billion in loans?
Lutz claims Big 3 "deserving" of $50 billion in loan guaranteesI want the Chevy Volt to succeed. I want the Big 3 to survive, but I want them to survive because they are solid, quality businesses. But are they?
'We make what consumers want,' the Big 3 have maintained, as their market share has perpetually declined as millions of consumers switched to more fuel efficient vehicles from the likes of Honda and Toyota.
And while hybrids didn't make sense to US automakers, despite tax payer funding, Toyota turned their hybrid cars into a long term business model, even though "nobody could have foreseen $4.00 gas prices."
Perhaps the Big 3 are deserving of these loans, but aren't the American people also deserving of some honest accountability? Some real responsibility?
Labels: Chevy Volt electric vehicle concept, fuel economy, Hybrid Vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:08 AM
8 Comments:
assumptions are not correct in my opinion.
_________________________________
http://urevi.com/ cars - reviews.
Assumptions are correct in my opinion. Though, they aren't really assumptions. They are somewhat a matter of fact. Big 3 are tanking, they've had the product people want in the past and discontinued it, and they have looked to our Tax Payer funded Goverment for below market cheap loans to cover for their bad decisions. The only assumption would be whether or not it's okay for Tax payers to help bail out large failing industries. Are they too big to fail such as the large Financials seem to be (Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc)?
"The only assumption would be whether or not it's okay for Tax payers to help bail out large failing industries. Are they too big to fail such as the large Financials seem to be (Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc)?"
Agreed. So, what's your opinion?
Bankruptcy, Sell off the company or parts of it...no one bails me out when I make a bad financial desicion. I don't want to pay for theirs.
Isn't it funny that the executives of these companies can profit 10s of millions of dollars, yet their companies need bailouts?
most average Americans probably feel like they need a bailout, but instead, we'll bail out the rich people.
most average Americans probably feel like they need a bailout, but instead, we'll bail out the rich people.
And people still think we have freedom and choice....
I do feel the pain of the automaker who will lose their jobs, however...
In the true spirit of theoretical capitalism the Federal Government has no business bailing out the automakers. As the conservatives like to say 'let the market sort it out.'
On another note, I am against a bailout because the US automakers are primarily responsible for their current state of economic affairs. They obviously learned nothing from the oil embargo of in 1973. Because they were myopic and accoustomed to marketing gas-guzzling autos for the US market, the Japanese were able to capture a significant portion of the US market by responding with more fuel efficient cars. A portion of the market the US never got back.
Once again they have been myopic and unable to respond in a timely fashion.
I am not an economist but I remember the term of relative advantage from my macro economics course. It argues that everyone, including Americans, would benefit financially if the automaker who could produce cars the most efficiently should do so. That is to say, let the Japanese and Koreans make the cars and Americans stick to agriculture where they excel (for now) and everyone will benefit.
Overall, SaavyShopper, I agree with your statements. So, does that mean that the US should embrace ethanol? Cellulosic ethanol?
I, for one, am not a fan of ethanol, but I do find interest in cellulosic ethanol and other forms of biofuel.
Any thoughts you'd like to add?
Post a Comment
<< Home