I saw this article on CNN and just had to post on it. It's about how President Bush told GM and Ford that they need to compete in the marketplace, not look for a government handout. The highlights:
President Bush said General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. should develop more appealing products rather than look to Washington for help with their heavy pension burdens, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
Asked if the government should take any pre-emptive action, Bush was quoted as saying, "I think it's very important for the market to function." Bush suggested that he felt optimistic about the companies' prospects, according to the newspaper.
According to the newspaper, Bush suggested that one way automakers could make more appealing products was to promote cars using alternative fuels, a topic he plans to mention in his State of the Union address next week.
My thoughts:
1. Come on GM and Ford -- compete for goodness sakes! You're getting your clocks cleaned in the marketplace.
2. Good thing Bush isn't in marketing. I don't think alternative fuel vehicles is the savior for these two. But how about just making a reliable car? How's that for a major insight?
3. Health care and pension costs are a big problem for Ford and GM. They're going to need to find some way to deal with them -- without making the U.S. taxpayer handle the burden.
4. I've written about this topic before. See these links for background:
Not to be critical (probably just bitter because I did not win the drawing) but the US name plates have proven again to be at least as reliable as their Asian, and specifically Japanese counterparts. This type of mis-information is not helping the American nameplates cause.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/Autos/american_cars/index.htm?cnn=yes
Posted by: Steve | January 31, 2006 at 02:18 PM
Steve --
The real issue is when you get down to models. For instance, Subaru is at the bottom when you look at reliability. But when you look at the "small SUV class", the Forester is among the tops. Hence, we bought a Forester. Likewise with our Toyota Corolla.
Besides, my personal experience does not speak well for American made cars. My first two cars were Buicks (rated high on the link you provided) and they were in the shop an awful lot. My last two cars were a Honda and a Nissan -- they weren't in the shop much at all -- and before that we had a Toyota (no problems). Now, which cars do you think I'm going to consider when I look to plunk down $20,000 or more for a new one?
Finally, the fact is that preception is reality -- that's the heart of marketing. If people think something, it alters the way they act, whether or not it's actually true. So if they think foreign cars are better, they will buy accordingly.
What do you think the issue is? What can be done to fix it? This is a hot topic in Michigan (my state) as you can imagine and I'm interested in any sort of solution anyone can come up with.
Posted by: FMF | January 31, 2006 at 02:59 PM
There is a stigma attached to American cars. It is unfortunate. My wife is dead set against owning an American car for "reliability issues". When I press her on it, and show her the article, then it changes to "I do not like their interior."
While it appears that she is just trying to come up with a reason, I can buy this arguement. My opinion is that the interior of American cars is not up to snuff when compared to cars from other places.
Posted by: Steve | January 31, 2006 at 06:07 PM