Posted on 01/13/2009 10:41:37 AM PST by Red Badger
As we all know by now, auto sales are down, dropping by around 18% in 2008. Pick-ups actually fared worse, posting a decline of 26.5% over the same period. Still, the Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado maintained their positions as the two best selling vehicles in the United States, and these two manufacturers managed to post incremental increases in total pick-up truck market share after all was said and done.
Those increases came directly from the competition, especially Dodge. The full-size Ram truck managed to see its piece of the pie dwindle by almost one full percentage point. Dodge's drop in overall market share allowed Toyota, for the first time ever, to grab the bronze medal behind Ford and General Motors. However, it's not particularly good news for the Japanese upstart, which owns just 8.52% of the market after seeing Tundra sales fall by over 30% in '08 and well short of its stated goal of 200,000 units per year. The last place trophy goes to Nissan, as its 34,000 sales represent a meager 2.11% of the market.
These market share figures include both full-sizers and their smaller brethren, and it was the Toyota Tacoma and the aging Ford Ranger that made the biggest upward moves among the mid-size pick-ups. Again, the biggest loser award goes to Dodge, which saw its Dakota sales fall nearly 65%, and its Mitsubishi Raider stablemate, which posted an insignificant 2,900 total sales.
Also, at the moment the banks are hoarding our money and buying other banks, giving themselves bonuses and many are about to fail...including Citi. Now that’s socialism in my book.
Problem is they had all the experience to know that gas wouldn’t stay cheap forever and there would again be a market for gas sippers. And the timing turned out as comical as possible. 2004 they make the announcement they’re all about SUVs and full-sized pickups, and months later gas prices start going up, and they don’t come back down until November 2008. The classic Detroit 3 mistake, they embrace the hogs just in time for gas to go up.
GM is the last to market, everybody else already has stuff out. And they turned AWAY from fuel economy in 2004, because the gas hogs have a higher profit margin.
Once again you point to other socialist mistakes to excuse the Detroit 3 bailout. Two stupids don’t make a smart.
We’ve already gone over this. Money from the fed to the state is not related to tax breaks the states give to businesses or people in the state. Heck you even basically admitted it when I pointed out that I don’t get any of the money AZ gets from the fed.
All those loans are wrong. Stop using other socialism to excuse socialism. All bailouts, even the ones structured as “loans”, are 100% WRONG because they are pure socialism.
I don’t see anything wrong with the loan...Chrysler got one in the 70’s and the government made money...we give small business loans-only 1 in 10 are in business five years later...nothing wrong with a loan that saves and entire industry. We just disagree.
Also, where do you think the states get the money to give businesses? That would be from taxes... Anyway we will see what happens. I am hoping for good things for the big three and the economy.
You accidentally hit on the other problem with the bailout. Chrysler got one in 1983 and now 25 years later they need another, thus proving that all that money didn’t help them fix the core problem of a mis-run company.
Failure part of the natural business cycle, the failure of some helps others to succeed. By bailing companies out and preventing failure we prevent that additional success for others. Think about it like this, had Chrysler failed GM and Ford would have been the big winners, being the only other major American auto companies (and thus the only guys capable of getting the “buy American only” customers Chrysler left behind) and the only other big truck guys they would have gotten the lion’s share of Chrysler’s business. To keep it easy figure GM and Ford would each have gotten about 1/3 and then “the field” (Japanese, Italian and small American companies) would have gotten the rest.
How much better off would GM be now if for the last 25 years they’d gotten 1/3 of Chrysler’s business?
And the answer to that question is why bailouts are stupid.
The states are GIVING with tax breaks, they’re TAKING LESS. We’ve already had that discussion.
Really, let’s see we have 25 years of taxes from Chrysler and its employers. Chrysler invented the Mini Van- sold tons and tons...one of the best selling cars of all times. Chrysler paid back all the money with interest and provided many jobs...I consider that a success. As for GM getting the business from Chrysler...not without changes in the trade policy. We are not talking about one company going under here...without a loan, the entire industry goes down...well worth giving a loan. As for giving tax breaks...The government has no independent funding thus they must take before they can give tax breaks to say the transplants. They also used enterprise zone (federal) money-another wonderful Clinton legacy (sarcasm).
And they’re now begging for money AGAIN. Meanwhile if their business had been parted out mostly to American companies the jobs and taxes would have been generated anyway, and GM and Ford would be in better shape now and probably not begging for money. Notice how you couldn’t be bothered to answer the question: how much better off would GM if they’d gotten 1/3 of Chrysler’s sales the last 25 years?! Would they need to be bailed out now.
The entire industry doesn’t go down. That’s BS we’ve already discussed and you’ve been proven wrong. Using it again is disingenuous. The nip companies wouldn’t leave, and there are small companies that would have the opportunity for growth.
Tax breaks are reduction in taking, NOT GIVING. Stop using Clinton “logic”.
You’re just going to have to learn to accept the truth. Bailouts (which these “loans” are) are SOCIALISM, they are EVIL, they are WRECKING THE COUNTRY. Defending them puts you on the side of everything you’re complaining about. Every time you complain about some sort of bailout others get you just prove why bailouts are wrong, you’re making yourself a hypocrite by complaining about some bailouts to defend others. All bailouts are made equal, they are all. Chrysler should have declared bankruptcy in 1983, GM should have in 2008, we are committing evil by not allowing normal market forces we are perpetuating stupidity.
Years and years later (since the Chrysler loan) after a huge financial melt down , the big three are in trouble as are every auto maker in the world. You don’t let an entire industry go down if you can help it-especially one as important as the auto industry. We must have more manufacturing-not less. Maybe you think Citi or AIG can produce something other that credit default swaps and get us out of this mess. I don’t When autos come back and they will, the pent up demand will really help this country. It was the war that got us out of the 32 depression-manufacturing for the war...autos may serve the same function this time. The big three will help turn this country around. When this happens perhaps you will acknowledge, the loan was a very good idea or not....as for Chrysler the loan was repaid and the taxpayers actually made money on the deal...it was not a bailout anymore than the current loan is a bail out.
I have never been proven wrong about the industry going down...you merely refuse to accept the truth...it would go down and permanently. I have talked until I am blue in the face about Suppliers and their issues. Those of you who hate the big three merely refuse to accept the truth. Haven’t we given enough jobs away? Do you want Dems to win Ohio and the Mid West forever? No GOP president has ever been elected in the 20th or 21st century without Ohio.
They did not merely give tax breaks to the transplants...they gave them cash to build their plants in many cases...the government got the money from taxpayers...they can only take what we give them in the form of taxes. Mississippi it totally screwed. They gave millions and millions to Toyota for a new plant...not going to happen-indefinite hold...guess what Mississippi will not get the money back; there pols trusted the Japanese-big mistake. If the recession continues, it’s only a matter of time before these transplant operations cease to operate anyway-all that bailout money down the drain. Now that’s socialism. Come on where will it end...now white collar banking jobs are going overseas...can’t you just look around and see the current economic plan (assuming there is one) is a dismal failure?
As for what’s good for the country...I have a different take. I think having an auto industry is very good for the country. I think many (not pointing fingers at you in particular) are suffering from union derangement syndrome and would be willing to send this country into a depression in order to kill the big three-thus killing the UAW.
Socialism is NEVER good for the country. Again how much better shape would GM be in if they’d had the sales increase the last 25 years from not bailing out Chrysler?
Citi and AIG and Chrysler and everybody else that’s gotten a bailout should have been allowed to fail. Let capitalism do what it does, failure provides opportunity for others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.