With all the talk of the government holding a majority stake in GM, what would that do to the brand loyalty that Chevy et al have? My thoughts are that although there are millions of people that buy GM's because that's what their dad bought, a great deal of those people will be turned off on the idea of buying a car from a company that when you boil it down is the government. Knowing how inefficient the fed is with everything they touch, running a car co. seems like a huge cluster berkeley.
Maybe it's just me, but in good conscience I could never buy a GM product if this comes to fruition. Everyday that this continues, it becomes even clearer that Ford without doubt did the right thing by not taking loans from the government. As Dave Ramsey is always quoting, "the borrower is slave to the lender".
bigbrainonbrad wrote:
Knowing how inefficient the fed is with everything they touch, running a car co. seems like a huge cluster berkeley.
Seriously, I think you could use "the fed" and "GM" interchangeably as far as how inefficiently things would be run. Throw the UAW in there and you've got the trinity of inefficiency.
Clem
Clem, I think GM's inefficiency is a given. Neither entity has any track record for accountability or efficiency.
SVreX
SuperDork
5/11/09 12:48 p.m.
bigbrainonbrad wrote:
As Dave Ramsey is always quoting, "the borrower is slave to the lender".
That's not Ramsey original source. That's the Bible (Proverbs 22:7).
Proverbs was written between the 6th and 10th centuries BC. More than 2600 years old, and still as true as ever.
I hadn't heard of the govt owning more than a very, very minor share in GM. The UAW is supposed to own 55% just like they do in Chrysler.
bigbrainonbrad wrote:
Clem, I think GM's inefficiency is a given. Neither entity has any track record for accountability or efficiency.
Well... the Post Office can get a letter all the way across the country for under half a buck pretty reliably. If I could expect that sort of service from Chevy I'd mosey on into the showroom for a Silverado with a tow package.
Milton Friedman was quoted as saying:"If the US Government ran the Sahara Desert, in three years it would be out of sand..." or words to that effect.
walterj wrote:
bigbrainonbrad wrote:
Clem, I think GM's inefficiency is a given. Neither entity has any track record for accountability or efficiency.
Well... the Post Office can get a letter all the way across the country for under half a buck pretty reliably. If I could expect that sort of service from Chevy I'd mosey on into the showroom for a Silverado with a tow package.
I always though the postal service was private, not government.
Joey
The US in USPS stands for United States. It is a a sevice of the Federal Government. One of the few they do pretty well.
I wouldn't call it doing very well since UPS, Fed Ex and the others do a much better job and cost less.
I simply love the way you can be in a long, long line and one of the 2 (if you're lucky) counter people will just stop and saunter in the back for their break. No words to anyone, no waiting till the line dies down, nothing.
carguy123 wrote:
I wouldn't call it doing very well since UPS, Fed Ex and the others do a much better job and cost less.
[stir the pot] I think that's stretching things a bit. [/stir the pot]
I've had much better luck with the post office than with UPS. Our post office move people through quickly, where as our UPS center generally has one person, and it seems like every transaction is the first he's ever done. Their delivery isn't much better. In the winter rather than walking up the shoveled driveway and step to the side door, our driver stops by the inaccessible front of the house and tosses the package onto a snow bank as close to the door as he can get.
If the post office is a great example of gov't efficiency why do they keep raising the rates and loose metric tons of money and want to cut back on service!
But back onto what I was originally getting at... Would you buy a car from a company that was owned by the government. Regardless of what company it is, no matter how well built, or how competitively priced I think a great deal of people that buy GM's will not because of goverment ownership. I sometimes troll a camaro board and there is a great deal of resentment towards GM among them. And let's face it they should be pretty happy because the 2010's are hitting the streets.
carguy123 wrote:
I wouldn't call it doing very well since UPS, Fed Ex and the others do a much better job and cost less.
I simply love the way you can be in a long, long line and one of the 2 (if you're lucky) counter people will just stop and saunter in the back for their break. No words to anyone, no waiting till the line dies down, nothing.
to stir the pot some more- which of UPS or Fed Ex can send a letter? Let alone for $.45, to anywhere in the US- from the virgin Islands to barrow AK, Portland OR to Portland ME?
You do know that the USPS is more than people at the counter, right?
But, hey, it's more fun bashing our government for things that they do pretty well, isn't it?
E-
Sorry to keep the off topic bearing here, but to seriously talk about UPS/FedEx and USPS is apples and oranges. Specialization. The USPS was formed before phones, telegraph (well, maybe not before telegraph, I don't remember way back then), electricity, internet. Fedex and UPS specialize in moving stuff of medium size. Not so much letters, not so much manufacturing fixtures.
More on topic. I don't really know how the government owning GM (or any other car company) would affect me, personally. I don't buy new, so it's easy for me not to care. In principle I don't like it. I guess I'm kind of idealistic when it comes to capitalism. As long as there's still parts in the junkyard though, I'll continue to drive whatever makes me feel happy when driving...
Old Chevies are definitely on that list of happy-to-drive vehicles. Seriously though, after working at GM, the union turned me off of buying anything UAW built EVER. That's just one small part of why I don't buy new.
Clem
I really don't care who owns GM if it is to be made competitive and stand on its own merit. What I see happening though is the competition is snuffed through using tax dollars to make them artificially cheap and more tariffs on imports.
The govt does not have to play fair because they get to make the rules... and when have they EVER just given up and privatized something they could use to hide spending?
The good news is you will be able to get a car for cheap... the bad news is it will be a Trabant and you won't be able to get anything else :)
walterj wrote:
The good news is you will be able to get a car for cheap... the bad news is it will be a Trabant and you won't be able to get anything else :)
Unfortunately that could be true for a Govt or Union owned car company. The difference is that, unless the govt subsidizes the unions again, the Union owned company would get it's comeuppance and would go out of business which leads us back to the govt subsidies.
While talking to a friend,who is a SAAB dealer, he said that now everyone is talking Chrysler-Fiat. I didn't ask if he is one of them.
Sorry if this is a little off topic.