Ralph Nader on GM's situation

Probably not exactly what you'd expect.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/19/autos/nader.gm.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009051915

Discuss.

Is it better to have foreign-branded cars built by American workers, or is it better to have American-branded cars built by foreign workers?

My opinion is that it's better to buy a car that's built here in the US, though I hear argument that just being a foreign-branded means more of the money of the sale of that car goes outside the U.S. I've never seen facts to back up that statistic, though.

Say I get shot in the head, not killing, but effectively lobotomizing me, and I buy a new Camry. One that's built on American soil by American workers. Have I helped America's economy by keeping American blue-collar workers employed, or have I hurt America's economy by not purchasing a Mexican-made Chevy or Canadian-built Ford?

i havent read the article, but berkley nader

yeah that didn't change my mind at all after reading it, but it's a valid argument.

I am very proud to say that my grandfather has told Nader to get the heck out of his office on more than one occasion.

Most foreign and domestic manufacturers are owned by shareholders located around the globe. Money goes everywhere.

The real problem is that as a nation, unlike other nations around the globe, we do not have a government that subsidizes manufacturing.

Our government subsidizes profits regardless of consequence.

Think I am kidding? Go look at China, India, Korea......

Now look at those empty CITIES here.....

Does anyone take that quack seriously anymore?

Shawn

ReverendDexter wrote: My opinion is that it's better to buy a car that's built here in the US, though I hear argument that just being a foreign-branded means more of the money of the sale of that car goes outside the U.S.

What happens when the manufacturing is outsourced, and the company is losing money?

ReverendDexter wrote: Is it better to have foreign-branded cars built by American workers, or is it better to have American-branded cars built by foreign workers?

I'm getting very tired of this argument. MOST Toyotas and Hondas are not made here, and even the ones that are- most of the parts are not- so the majority of assembly cost is outside of the US.

And MOST of the US cars are made in the US. Especially the high volume cars- truck, SUV's, and large cars. People cherry pick the US cars that are built in Mexico- (our SOME Focuses and Fusion) and forget that there's a Focus plant here in Dearborn, a Taurus/MKS plant in Chicago (engines built in Cleveland), and one of the Truck plants in Wayne (here in Detroit) is being converted to make Fiestas and other cars.

Stop using a bad reason to justify your purchase. I'm OK with you buying Hondas and Toyotas, but to justify it with this is just wrong. Taste, price, driveability, etc- fine.

Eric

I think that the MFG should take place here. Just putting the cash in GMs hand for the cars bought doesnt help as much as the cash that GM pays its people to make em. Consumer cash flow in the states does a lot more to support regional income for other companies than cash flow into the entire entity, even if the money going to the employees is significantly less than the money flowing into the company. If the cash that GM makes stays here to pay the workers, then the workers buy steaks at the grocery, shoes at the mall and put the rest in the bank to earn interest and allowing the banks to loan out a portion of that money to other consumers to buy cars etc etc etc. Cash flowing into the employees hands does WAAAAAY more for the economy than cash flowing into the companies account, even if the former is less than the latter. If the companies budget is too unbalanced to be profittable, outsourcing may be an option. However, in this instance, big brothers intervention is not necessarily supposed to be a benefit to the company itself, but its effect on the local and national economy, saving GMs bacon (mmmm Bacon) is just an added bonus. that being said, the best option is to make GM smaller in order to support its US interests. Less models, less brands...whatever. If GM is going to be propped up by the Gov't (a plan Im still on the fence about) GMs future progress needs to be directed by the gov't in such a way that it benefits the USDM economy, not just keeping the company afloat.

Thanks Econ 101.

[/flounder]

So Nader helped drive American consumers to import cars (yes, GM et al screwed themselves mightily but he helped), now he sees the long term consequences of those actions and wants to reverse them in the name of 'helping the blue collar worker'? I thought he was a blowhard before but this really takes top prize.

I think you mean ECON 102, 4cylndrfury. Macro Economics. 101 is usually Micro, still an interesting study if 99% theoretical bull E36 M3.

I saw a report some time back that had the percentage of parts made in the US for each vehicle, and the Toyotas and Honduhs were at the top on many of their vehicles like the Camry and Accord, I think, and the trucks. The Lexus' were about all Japanese.

So, GM's gonna solve their problems by importing foreign made cars. I guess the UAW gets the shaft. That should teach them who's on their side come next election.

Dr. Hess wrote: in yo FACE 4cylndrfury.

touche

Nader = Al Sharpton of the automotive industry. He lost credibility a long time ago in my eyes

alfadriver wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: Is it better to have foreign-branded cars built by American workers, or is it better to have American-branded cars built by foreign workers?

I'm getting very tired of this argument. MOST Toyotas and Hondas are not made here, and even the ones that are- most of the parts are not- so the majority of assembly cost is outside of the US. And MOST of the US cars are made in the US. Especially the high volume cars- truck, SUV's, and large cars. People cherry pick the US cars that are built in Mexico- (our SOME Focuses and Fusion) and forget that there's a Focus plant here in Dearborn, a Taurus/MKS plant in Chicago (engines built in Cleveland), and one of the Truck plants in Wayne (here in Detroit) is being converted to make Fiestas and other cars. Stop using a bad reason to justify your purchase. I'm OK with you buying Hondas and Toyotas, but to justify it with this is just wrong. Taste, price, driveability, etc- fine. Eric

I lay no claim to this argument, lol. If it's bad, so be it. I'm part of the problem because I don't buy new cars, period, not because I buy new non-American cars. There's not a single new car I've seen that justifies to me the price that I would have to pay to own it.

Now, this very well could change. If Ford makes the TwinForce, err, "EcoBoost" V6 the base motor for the Mustang, and keeps the pricing along the same lines as it is now, I'd give a long, hard thought towards trading in the Cobra on one. Slap some cranky old man's name on it or a 3-letter badge and use that to jack the price up $5-10k, and no way.

ReverendDexter wrote: Is it better to have foreign-branded cars built by American workers, or is it better to have American-branded cars built by foreign workers?

My opinion is that it's better to get the car you want. Half of my current fleet was built/designed/branded in America, which is cool, but there's only so much awesomeness that one country can put out.

ReverendDexter wrote: I lay no claim to this argument, lol. If it's bad, so be it. I'm part of the problem because I don't buy new cars, period, not because I buy new non-American cars. There's not a single new car I've seen that justifies to me the price that I would have to pay to own it. Now, this very well could change. If Ford makes the TwinForce, err, "EcoBoost" V6 the base motor for the Mustang, and keeps the pricing along the same lines as it is now, I'd give a long, hard thought towards trading in the Cobra on one. Slap some cranky old man's name on it or a 3-letter badge and use that to jack the price up $5-10k, and no way.

So you'd buy a new car if they sold it to you for less than the cost to make it? As we know, the auto companies are barely keep their heads above water and you're wanting a product for even cheaper than it costs now but with a significantly more expensive powertrain. I suppose you want to keep the warranty, too...

Bryce

Interesting, but probably a moot point. The administration just told a broke industry that they have 6-7 years to increase their average fuel economy to 40+ mpg. Where are they going to get the funds to pay for this?

At this point GM sells more cars overseas than it does in the US. They make money on cars sold over seas and lose money on a lot of the cars sold here. If I was in their shoes I would be seriously considering packing my stuff and going where I could make money.

Here is another interesting read from NPR of all sources. It is an older article, but helps to understand how GM ended up here. Pay close attention to the costs of labor and health care. GM in the US has been bleeding money so fast that even their profitable divisions can't keep up.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/

Nashco wrote: So you'd buy a new car if they sold it to you for less than the cost to make it? As we know, the auto companies are barely keep their heads above water and you're wanting a product for even cheaper than it costs now but with a significantly more expensive powertrain. I suppose you want to keep the warranty, too... Bryce

It's not my fault that the business model is faulty. This is basic econ: if your product costs more to make than what someone will pay you for it, it's not worth the time and effort to make it.

I'm not asking that the auto manufacturers to GIVE me anything. They make the cars they do, put the prices on them that they can, and I feel that what they've made is NOT worth a year of my time at my current pay (even before the government gets their share) in exchange for ownership.

I fully understand that I'm in the minority, and I don't expect the auto companies to change based on what I, and the few others like me, would prefer. However, I'm also not going to buy any of their what-I-consider-to-be-bloated-crap so long as I can legally obtain the small, simple, easily repairable cars that I currently can.

ReverendDexter wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: Is it better to have foreign-branded cars built by American workers, or is it better to have American-branded cars built by foreign workers?

I'm getting very tired of this argument. MOST Toyotas and Hondas are not made here, and even the ones that are- most of the parts are not- so the majority of assembly cost is outside of the US. And MOST of the US cars are made in the US. Especially the high volume cars- truck, SUV's, and large cars. People cherry pick the US cars that are built in Mexico- (our SOME Focuses and Fusion) and forget that there's a Focus plant here in Dearborn, a Taurus/MKS plant in Chicago (engines built in Cleveland), and one of the Truck plants in Wayne (here in Detroit) is being converted to make Fiestas and other cars. Stop using a bad reason to justify your purchase. I'm OK with you buying Hondas and Toyotas, but to justify it with this is just wrong. Taste, price, driveability, etc- fine. Eric

I lay no claim to this argument, lol. If it's bad, so be it. I'm part of the problem because I don't buy new cars, period, not because I buy new non-American cars. There's not a single new car I've seen that justifies to me the price that I would have to pay to own it. Now, this very well could change. If Ford makes the TwinForce, err, "EcoBoost" V6 the base motor for the Mustang, and keeps the pricing along the same lines as it is now, I'd give a long, hard thought towards trading in the Cobra on one. Slap some cranky old man's name on it or a 3-letter badge and use that to jack the price up $5-10k, and no way.

wow, and here i thought i was being optimistic in hoping that they'd sell the ecoboost mustang for about what they sell the current GT for. you, my friend, are really dreaming.

you can't honestly think that a 400hp twin turbo v6 mustang with all the handling/braking/powertrain upgrades required to not kill people should sell for the same as the current base model sohc truck motor, can you?

Strizzo wrote: you can't honestly think that a 400hp twin turbo v6 mustang with all the handling/braking/powertrain upgrades required to not kill people should sell for the same as the current base model sohc truck motor, can you?

It's not for me to determine what a car should sell for, only what I'm willing to pay for it. If Ford can put that price tag on it, and sell enough to make money, kudos to them. I won't buy a new one at the price you're suggesting.

4cylndrfury wrote: I think that the MFG should take place here. Just putting the cash in GMs hand for the cars bought doesnt help as much as the cash that GM pays its people to make em. Consumer cash flow in the states does a lot more to support regional income for other companies than cash flow into the entire entity, even if the money going to the employees is significantly less than the money flowing into the company. If the cash that GM makes stays here to pay the workers, then the workers buy steaks at the grocery, shoes at the mall and put the rest in the bank to earn interest and allowing the banks to loan out a portion of that money to other consumers to buy cars etc etc etc. Cash flowing into the employees hands does WAAAAAY more for the economy than cash flowing into the companies account, even if the former is less than the latter. If the companies budget is too unbalanced to be profittable, outsourcing may be an option. However, in this instance, big brothers intervention is not necessarily supposed to be a benefit to the company itself, but its effect on the local and national economy, saving GMs bacon (mmmm Bacon) is just an added bonus. that being said, the best option is to make GM smaller in order to support its US interests. Less models, less brands...whatever. If GM is going to be propped up by the Gov't (a plan Im still on the fence about) GMs future progress needs to be directed by the gov't in such a way that it benefits the USDM economy, not just keeping the company afloat. Thanks Econ 101. [/flounder]

Econ 101? They you surely know about comparative advantage. Countries should not attempt to manufacture all kinds of goods Countries should manufacture goods and provide services that they can do so more efficiently and trade for other goods and services.

If cars can be built more cost-effectively overseas or in the American south, that is where they should be built.Former auto producing areas should seek to provide other goods and services and trade.

Due to wage and cost structures, the U.S. can build higher-cost vehicles beacuse of their wider profit margins. GM, Ford and Chrysler should build smaller vehicles in lower cost areas and have those cars count towards CAFE averages. That is not currently the case.