CARBIZ

Not too be picky, but with respect to the liberal/conservative divide, I would further divide these 'groups' into social conservatives/economic conservatives plus social liberals/economic liberals. This is an important point. Economic conservatives are against any kind of a bailout, as are social liberals. Social conservatives and economic liberals would see bail outs as a necessary evil. I don't believe we can go by the old labels anymore, which is why most Western countries are becoming so politically fractured and, therefore, paralyzed. Social liberals want autos banned. Economic liberals want more government intervention. It is harder to nail down a majority of what people believe/want anymore.

In Canada, we have this lovely group, called MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Driver's). This was all started quite a few years back by (surprise, surprise) a woman whose son was killed by a drunk driver. Although it sucks to be the victim, since there are so many victims to select from, where will all this end? Many of you guys support the love of 400 hp, RWD, V-8 fire-breathing engines, but understand that these same safety nazis will get around to your love of cars, too. There are some laws that are common sense, like safety belt laws. Harmless, innocuous even; however, what is the difference between the Soviet-style roadblocks of the '70s/'80s and the roadblocks that many States/Provinces condone that allow police to pull over every car that is passing by, under the guise of sobriety checks or 'safety' checks? Really, explain to me what the difference is. I used to live in a small town that exploded in population every summer. (Wasaga Beach for all you Ontarians.) Every April the local constabulary would hire a couple dozen officers to police the upcoming quintuppling of the population. These officers largely had nothing to do for a few week until June, so virtually every night they set up a road block across the main street and forced every motorist into the Lion's Club parking lot for random searches/breathalizers. EVERY CAR. Since I worked until 10 pm every night in those days, you can bet I was beyond aggravated when I got pulled over nearly every night and interrogated. I don't envy the police their jobs, but we are on a slippery slope. Toronto is installing red light cameras on more and more streets every year. What reasonable person would oppose such a thing? Look at London and their thousands of street cameras, installed for public safety. Where will it end? Gun control laws. What reasonable person needs a gun? Mandatory, mass DNA testing to be kept in police data banks, under lock and key, of course. Orwell and Huxley had a pretty good idea where this is all going to end. And they warned us.

I read somewhere that CEO's salaries went from 13X the average worker's wage in the '50s to over 40X the average worker's wage by the '90s. Although one could argue that this is merely capitalism working as it should, how can one ignore the fact that there has been an explosion of the 'filthy' rich over the past couple decades? When PH condos can feth 30+ million dollars, something is way out of whack, IMO. But who do we blame, ultimately? I think it is part and parcel of this entire 'globalism' push. A few of us were discussing this the other day and I use the example of dealer networks. What is the advantage to the customer or employee by one 'owner' controlling a half dozen or more dealers? Honestly, there are no advantages. The only advantage is to the owner themselves and to their family. If one dealer has a 7% margin and has $60million a year in sales, then the 'owner' has access to $6 million in profit to either re-invest or pocket. However, if he/she 'owns' 6 dealers, the potential rises to $36 million in profits. The spin, of course, is that there is greater protection for all employees/customers involved because if one dealer falls on hard times, the others can prop it up. Ah, but that is the theory. However, in practice unless there is some sort of strong emotional tie, the 'owner' will merely jettison the poorly performing dealer and all it's employees/customers, too. This is a microcosm of what is happening to GM and Ford these days: 'owners' who made their fortunes off GM/Ford are running like rats off a sinking ship to the safety of their Honda/Toyota dealerships, thus accelerating GM/Ford's demise. On a global scale, none of these CEOs or board members have any personal/emotional stakes in the companies they run. If you check the Board lists of major corporations, you will find many of these guys/gals sit on at least 2 or more boards. In theory, this cross-pollination may seem to be beneficial by spreading around their expertise, but I also see this as being detrimental since these people are not necessarily commited to any one company. Mulally could be one example: does he even like Fords? Has he or his family ever even owned one before he became CEO of Ford? It's very easy to get angry with Wagoner about this mess and I suspect because he is the public face of GM, he will be professionally humilated (although still very rich) if GM fails or he is dumped, but the rest of the Board members will just go back to running the other companies they sit on and the public at large will be none the wiser. Ditto for the other VPs and various Presidents at GM and Ford - most of them will land on their feet at other huge multinationals and continue undaunted. Socialist papers love to whine about 'absent landlords,' but much the same can be said about multi-national corporations as they spread their tentacles around the globe.

This is the daily cartoon in the Toronto Star today. I seriously have no idea how they find this $h! funny. This is Canada's biggest daily newspaper. Their hatred for Detroit knows no bounds.

My father owned a service station when I was 5. We always had cool cars on our farm. I used to have my lunch in a Morris Minor, then a '57 Plymouth. I remember him parking a '59 Lincoln behind the barn and being blown away by the cat's eyes. I also liked 'dinkie toys.' Go figure. :AH-HA_wink: I drove the '57 Plymouth through a fence, at the age of 6. My mother drove a two-town '56 Ford for a while. Later, when my parents split up, my stepfather (who considered himself a backyard mechanic - NOT), brought home a parade of clunkers, from a '64 Fairlane that could barely make it up the hill where our farm was, to a '67 Caprice coupe with bucket seats, to a '66 Pontiac wagon and a '61 Pontiac convertible that he only got to run for about a week. Then we had an uncle's '67 Newport. While we lived on the west coast, my father bought cool Mopars: a '66, then a '69 300. He could afford new. His boss had a '71 Imperial when our family moved back to Ontario, which sort of began my obsession with Mopar products. My mother/stepfather changed vehicles a lot because he would patch them up and nurse them for a few months to a year. We moved to BC in '67 in a '57 Ford wagon; returned to Ontario in '71 in a '63 Ford Econoline (that was a scary vehicle - engine between the seats, no power steering!) My first 3 vehicles were Dodges: a '67 Polara (12 years old when I bought it), a '82 Rampage (new) and '87 Shadow (new.) The last vehicle ended my love affair with Mopar products: a travesty of a vehicle that looked good but spent more time in the shop than my driveway. However, unlike some people, I don't tar Chrysler with my bad experiences with one vehicle. I am smart enough to know that a lot of the difficulties I had with that vehicle were because of the dealer. Blue Mountain Chrysler I would never use again; Chrysler I would. I've always fancied myself a car nut. I still blow a wad when I see a be-finned car on the street, although in Ontario they are rarer than hen's teeth. I once thought I'd go into automotive engineering, but my math sucked and I sucked at drafting, too.

Wow, you really believe press clippings, don't you? Both Germany and France had initial reports that Hussain had WMD. And you do know that he did, in fact, use them a couple times on the Kurds in the north? Bush may have needed little excuse to go into Baghdad and remove a dictator, the real fault is with his father for not doing so in '91 when he had the chance. GXT, please keep posting, I haven't laughed so hard over breakfast in a while.

Are you still here? Clearly, you know less about marketing than you do about the auto industry. Even Tide commercials will declare they are 'new and improved.' Never had a haircut where your friends (you do have friends, don't you?) declare, 'wow, you look better,' implying that you looked 'worse' before? Most of the improvements GM and Ford have made in the past few years have been cosmetic ones to make the jaded auto press stand up and pay attention. I've never once, in 11 years in the 'biz, had a customer say, 'Gee, I wish my dash had softer plastics,' but this is something the press likes to harp on. In talking to a previous customer yesterday (who loves his '01 Intrigue still), he remarked that 'GM should build interiors more like BMW.' I replied, 'that's, fine, but then you will have a Cobalt that costs $30k. Is that what you want?' MM is a blow hard who exists only to self-promote so he can afford to keep shovelling those twinkies into his face. Nothing more, nothing less. To even dignify his assertions with this discussion is granting him more than he deserves.

I haven't watched SNL in about a decade. Their attempts at humor are often painful. I wouldn't get overly upset about their trashing of Detroit: we know that it is both that particular age group and Hollywood in general that are the result of the me-first generation. They are 'entitled' to drive their Lexus and Acuras, as we are entitled to watch BBC sitcoms which are far more intelligent and cutting edge.

I saw Roger & Me, and I have refused to watch anything else that waste of protoplasm has made. I only have one thing to say to MM: Jenny Craig!

Just ignore him. Like most boils, they go away eventually.

I usually disappear for my birthdays, too. Happy b'day, Fly. You're missed.

I already speculated out loud as to why the hearings weren't held in Detroit, so the fat cats can tour GM's proving grounds, Ford's factories, etc. to meet & greet the new models and the people who build them. No, they'd rather score cheap shots from the vantage point of their soft chairs.

But GM is profitable in China and Korea. GM sells a lot of vehicles in those markets. Congress has no business making such demands. It boils down to Japan and Japan alone. They hide behind their protectionist walls and are free to assault every market on the planet, but no one has been allowed to ascend their hollowed walls. For the record, Ottawa and Ontario are looking at 'rescue packages,' but want to coordinate with Washington.

There is one huge difference between Chrysler in '79 and GM in '08: Chrysler was the last of the Big 3 to acknowledge small cars were coming and was largely caught flat-footed by the 2nd oil shock. Whereas GM 'downsized' its best selling full-sized Chevrolets in '77 (and Ford followed suit in '78), Chrysler itself didn't downsize its full-sized vehicle until after that. In fact, the only mid-sized car under the Chrysler banner at the time was the Cordoba, which although a sales smash in '74, had largely died by '78/'79. Their 'best selling' Volare/Aspen twins were powered by the reliable, but gas sucking slant-6. The Chevette and later Escort were 4-cylinders. When Chrysler rushed the Omni/Horizon twins to market, they were powered by a licensed VW engine (although in truth Chrysler did sell the odd Cricket or two, licensed under Mitsu). The hostage crisis put all of Detroit on shaky footing and then the U.S. economy went into the toilet. GM has been 'right-sizing' its empire since Lutz came onboard in '01. All the re-jigged UAW contracts, E-flex, Volt, etc. are well on their way to 'turning around' GM. These were all hammered out 2,3 or even 4 years ago but won't bear fruit until '09/'10. All the favorite failings, as purported by self-apointed experts, whether the hoary 4 spd transmissions, push rod engines, lack of hybrids, etc. have all been addressed, but the mortgage meltdown has derailed everything. Chrysler's 'turn around' was far less assured in '79 than GM's could be today, IMO. In fact, it could be argued, if it weren't for their lucky success with the MagicWagons in '84, Chrysler probably wouldn't be around today. Although the K-car was a sales success in '81, Chrysler wasn't making much money from them. However, it was the volume leading MagicWagons that gave Chrysler the profits to buy AMC (Jeep) and eventually build its new design center that begat the LH cars in the early '90s that continued Chrysler's design renaissance.

... yet I had a customer who bought the G3 because he felt the license plate holder (required in Ontario) ruined the look of the vehicle, which IMO, it does. Many of the better looking vehicles (Corvette, for example) are ruined by the presence of front licens plates. I would agree that the double grille on the Aveo is a bit over the top, but over all I still like it the best in an arguably boring crop of subcompacts (Yaris, Versa, etc.)

Although I understand the sentiment, their is a huge flaw in this logic: the Big 3 sell nearly 3/4 of a million vehicles a year in Canada, and dominate Australia's market, too. Drawing on their world experience should not be viewed as a sign of weakness, but rather of strength. Any patents that result from R&D money spent in Australia or Canada are OWNED by GM. We need to get beyond the sentiment of the hapless worker on the line, turning a wrench. The greater issues here go way beyond that. GM employs engineers and designers right here in Canada; what Toyota and Honda do is little more than window dressing. If GM or Ford were to close operations in Ontario and 'bring them home,' you can bet there would be a backlash in Canada, which would invoke NAFTA. Ire needs to be directed at Japan because of its closed market. Nobody has any sizeable presence in Japan - not GM, not Ford, not Peugeot, not BMW, not VW. NOBODY.

Unless Washington (and Ottawa) understands the long term affects of a GM or Ford bankruptcy, bankruptcy may be the only option. With the market meltdown, there is no way in hell the UAW pension fund can be anywhere near what it needs to continue. Is GM still responsible for 'topping it up?' If so, that fact alone will crush GM. The market meltdown is NOT GM's fault. Washington needs to understand that. If GM files for Chapter 11, then Washington is going to be facing a half million suddenly poor pensioners. Who is going to support them? This is a greater question for Joe Public. Do they want their money to go to supporting UAW retirees, or to Japanese retirees? That is the bottom line. We can argue until we are blue in the face as to whether the UAW deserves the pensions/health care plans that they have, but the fact is they have them. As things stand, GM is responsible to meet those obligations. Washington can either pay now or pay later.

First let's get past the $25b bailout, then fret about $50 a barrel oil - that will be the next challenge for the Volt.

Well, we're always big on symbolism in our society, so Wagoner probably will have to fall on his own sword just to make the critics happy. For a better take on his career, critics should look at the shining jewel GM's operations are in Brazil, which he had a big hand in turning around during his tenure there: GM-Brazil is profitable, is enjoying strong growth and is perennially neck and neck with VW for #2 in sales. I suppose the current President of South American operations can take all the credit for that. We will need no better illustration of this point than what will happen to Obama over the next couple years: he will blame Bush for everything (and he'd be correct), but anything he would like to do (his own legacy) will have to wait while he puts out a dozen fires.

The trouble with WallStreet is that it is run by accountants and lawyers. Has anyone ever tried to do their own tax return? Why is it so deliberately complicated? White collar crime has to be viewed with the same degree of seriousness as other crimes. What's the difference: someone robs a 7-11 and steals hard-earned money from a family who work round the clock, or some trader on WallStreet steals money from people's pensions? It's the same damned thing, but the money traders, lawyers and accountants cloak themselves in secrecy and mythology. Shell companies, asset-backed paper - WTF? It's all designed to make the rich richer and to avoid paying taxes. Simplify the tax codes and force a minimum tax. Get rid of all the sales taxes, etc. and slap a minimum tax on corporations and individuals. But no, you will never see that happen because too many accountants and lawyers make their living based on deliberately confusing issues. But, yeah, this was an excellent article. I agree with FOG, we need some sort of revolution to re-organized our society. There is never any grey area, there are only rights and wrongs confused by people's personal agendas.

You do realize that Top Gear is British, and that the Imperial gallon is 20% larger than the US gallon, which means that their 70 mpg is equivalent to 56 mpg in US gallons. Just thought you should know, is all. Now, go back to your continued bashing of GM...........

Good read. It's sad that it may take bankruptcy to get some of the fat, jaded press off their asses to start looking beyond the headlines and do some real reporting.

I am not really defending Wagoner, per se. I don't know the man. I've followed his career and, frankly, he seems like the sort that should be running GM. He has a lot of experience within GM's inner circles and since running a major corporation these days is 3/4 about who you know and 1/4 actual talent, I would say that only someone like Wagoner can run a company like GM. I just don't see how firing him at this point would do any real GOOD. Sure, it may be good for optics, but I am so fed up with politicans and companies running around pretending to do something, appearing to be doing something, rather than actually doing ANYTHING. You seem to think that hiring an outsider (like Mulally) will be a good idea and you may be right, but with GM so close to the brink, I don't feel comfortable knowing that an outsider - no matter how much carte blanche he has been given, will take weeks or months to 'get to know' the other guys and the politics. In a previous life, I was called in to clean up a mess that a former manager had made. There were lawsuits involved. I was warned by senior management to 'tread carefully.' Staff were disillusioned. The books were a mess. Policies weren't being followed. Sure, within a couple days I had sized up the problem, but it still took me a couple months to do anything effective about it - and I am talking about a business that was a tiny portion of GM's size/sales. GM does not have that kind of time. And, by your assertions, most of the Board and other management are part of the problem, so how could GM promote from within and avoid the ingrained cultural myopics that you are so incensed about? Damned if they do, damned if they don't, IMO.

One of the problems is that consumers have grown addicted to 0 down, 0% financing. GM is offering these wierd $5,000 rebates for the Malibu, but the money only goes to the dealer for 'alternate' financing. (In other words, it is NOT a cash rebate and the customer must finance through our bank for 72 months or longer.) I understand the logic, and truthfully it does give the customer about the same payment as what our leases used to be, but the unfortunate affect is to turn us into financial advisors, not product advisors. Virtually every customer I have had in the past few weeks has turned into a lengthy discussion on their 'financing' options and the merits of the vehicle are left by the wayside. It's an unfortunate result of GMAC not being able to finance anything these days. As bad as things are now, I am also concerned that in 3 1/2 years when the last of the leases I wrote come due, I will be left with a huge hole in my portfolio. 2003 was ugly because in 2000 GMAC swtiched from 3 year to 4 year leases. 2012 will be worse. That is, of course, assuming GM is around in 2012.

No, that's probably sage advice. Too many people live their lives alone because they are expecting perfection. Sorry, but I am taken, so the rest of you will have to settle for 'good enough.'