Volt do you mean?
A leftish-leaning friend called me to tell me that I had it all wrong about GM: the UAW are not to blame and management should be strung up. And then went on to say that the new GM Volt will be the answer to all problems when we all adopt this wonderful piece of high-tech engineering.
Yeah, right.
You see, this Volt-thing is Kyoto-krap. GM admits that the car cannot make money -- if they charged full whack for it, adding on re-cap costs, and pay-down for development ... it would be so expensive that you could buy two Priuses (or more). So Uncle Sam (through the graces of generous Democrat sponsorship) has already legislated a $7500 tax break for each car -- not that this helps, because at $40,000 estimated show room cost, consumers still will not buy it and (get this!!!) GM will still lose money on each car. Er??? And this piece of high tech nonsense has and will continue to consume billions and billions (Carl Saganesque amounts) of development dollars, freezing out small efficient hybrids and diesels which are on the drawing boards of GM Europe.
But GM (U.S.), clinging to its "sell those profitable SUVs" model needs this car: buy assigning a government 100 mpg rating to this car, the CAFE fleet rules (average mpg of vehicles made by a manufacturer) allows it to evade government mandated efficiency standards. That is, each Volt allows GM to peddle more gas-hog SUVs, which are (or at least have been) extremely profitable. While sleazy, this would be grand for GM, but for a simple failure to calculate this: Americans don't want SUVs anymore.
Are the UAW responsible for this? Not exactly -- although on its face, it is all about management failures. And management's greatest failure (and our government's) is/was the failure to reign in costs ... health care, pensions ... all of which points back to the UAW. You can't shut that inefficient plant, because if you do, then the UAW will walk out across the board. Ever heard of the "job bank?" Neither had I until recently. It is a gimmick whereby an auto worker whose job has been eliminated by automation or other efficiency continues to get paid. So what was the point of the efficiency move? None, really.
We also need to look at the Federal Government for "dirty hands"; as early as the Carter administration, we were out there with rescues (Chrysler), not to mention the blatant idiocy of calling SUVs "trucks" to avoid mileage restrictions (yes they are built on truck frames and running gear, but fail to have any of the work-driven benefit to society). This same stupid rule continues to haunt GM (and Ford/Chrysler): in order to meet the fleet mpg restrictions, GM MUST continue to produce cheap, nasty, roller skates in UAW-controlled plants to offset the gas-guzzling nature of their (now defunct) profit centers. Quite a trap, huh? And in so doing, enfranchise another generation of UAW blackmailers.
Yesterday, I elaborated on the fact that GM and Ford actually produce excellent small cars that can and do compete on price and quality against any other manufacturer in the world -- just not here. One wonders what adjustments in production and organizational structure would be required to make those cars profitable here (they make tons of money abroad)? Could it be that difficult? Would it require that UAW workers actually produce as much and at the same or higher quality as their German counterparts? Would this shift relieve GM and Ford from having to depend on the dinosaurs that nobody wants anymore?
Make no mistake, the age of the Suburban is past: the price shock of the past year will make anyone thinking of buying an SUV very leery of getting caught again: if the cost of filling it with gas didn't make you nauseous, the precipitous drop in resale values will. Essentially, you cannot give a used Chevy Tahoe away. It costs too much to run, even if it was free.
So instead, Pelosi, Reid and Obama want to throw good money after bad ... continue to fund the UAW's golden health and pension plans ... and mandate that in return for rescue, the Big Three produce eco-friendly cars. And, of course, the Democrats will be the ones to determine what a green car should look like. They said that a camel was designed by committee ... can you imagine what Barney Frank's car will look like?
Yeah, right.
You see, this Volt-thing is Kyoto-krap. GM admits that the car cannot make money -- if they charged full whack for it, adding on re-cap costs, and pay-down for development ... it would be so expensive that you could buy two Priuses (or more). So Uncle Sam (through the graces of generous Democrat sponsorship) has already legislated a $7500 tax break for each car -- not that this helps, because at $40,000 estimated show room cost, consumers still will not buy it and (get this!!!) GM will still lose money on each car. Er??? And this piece of high tech nonsense has and will continue to consume billions and billions (Carl Saganesque amounts) of development dollars, freezing out small efficient hybrids and diesels which are on the drawing boards of GM Europe.
But GM (U.S.), clinging to its "sell those profitable SUVs" model needs this car: buy assigning a government 100 mpg rating to this car, the CAFE fleet rules (average mpg of vehicles made by a manufacturer) allows it to evade government mandated efficiency standards. That is, each Volt allows GM to peddle more gas-hog SUVs, which are (or at least have been) extremely profitable. While sleazy, this would be grand for GM, but for a simple failure to calculate this: Americans don't want SUVs anymore.
Are the UAW responsible for this? Not exactly -- although on its face, it is all about management failures. And management's greatest failure (and our government's) is/was the failure to reign in costs ... health care, pensions ... all of which points back to the UAW. You can't shut that inefficient plant, because if you do, then the UAW will walk out across the board. Ever heard of the "job bank?" Neither had I until recently. It is a gimmick whereby an auto worker whose job has been eliminated by automation or other efficiency continues to get paid. So what was the point of the efficiency move? None, really.
We also need to look at the Federal Government for "dirty hands"; as early as the Carter administration, we were out there with rescues (Chrysler), not to mention the blatant idiocy of calling SUVs "trucks" to avoid mileage restrictions (yes they are built on truck frames and running gear, but fail to have any of the work-driven benefit to society). This same stupid rule continues to haunt GM (and Ford/Chrysler): in order to meet the fleet mpg restrictions, GM MUST continue to produce cheap, nasty, roller skates in UAW-controlled plants to offset the gas-guzzling nature of their (now defunct) profit centers. Quite a trap, huh? And in so doing, enfranchise another generation of UAW blackmailers.
Yesterday, I elaborated on the fact that GM and Ford actually produce excellent small cars that can and do compete on price and quality against any other manufacturer in the world -- just not here. One wonders what adjustments in production and organizational structure would be required to make those cars profitable here (they make tons of money abroad)? Could it be that difficult? Would it require that UAW workers actually produce as much and at the same or higher quality as their German counterparts? Would this shift relieve GM and Ford from having to depend on the dinosaurs that nobody wants anymore?
Make no mistake, the age of the Suburban is past: the price shock of the past year will make anyone thinking of buying an SUV very leery of getting caught again: if the cost of filling it with gas didn't make you nauseous, the precipitous drop in resale values will. Essentially, you cannot give a used Chevy Tahoe away. It costs too much to run, even if it was free.
So instead, Pelosi, Reid and Obama want to throw good money after bad ... continue to fund the UAW's golden health and pension plans ... and mandate that in return for rescue, the Big Three produce eco-friendly cars. And, of course, the Democrats will be the ones to determine what a green car should look like. They said that a camel was designed by committee ... can you imagine what Barney Frank's car will look like?
posted by Zaphod at Thursday, November 13, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home