  Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 4201 Registered: 06-2004 |
It really bothers me the way he keeps bashing the automakers. As President would he be good, bad, or neutral for Detroit and Michigan? | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 844 Registered: 04-2006 |
For one thing, either clinton or obama would be good for the automakers, in that they might create a comprehensive healthcare plan, making the american manufacturers more competitive. | ||
Dannyv Member Username: Dannyv Post Number: 189 Registered: 08-2007 |
The auto makers made a Faustian bargain by building and promoting heavy, gas guzzling SUVs. That's why we're so heavily involved in the Middle East, to project our interests in securing a reliable source of oil. If Obama is President I believe he will lean on the auto makers to build more fuel efficient vehicles. Do you recall how the economy of Texas was depressed in the late 80s because of falling oil prices? People switched into vehicles getting better gas mileage and lessened the demand for oil. I don't know if that same effect would happen given the emergence of China and India and their oil demands. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 4203 Registered: 06-2004 |
Consumers want to buy trucks and SUVs. Detroit was building smaller, fuel efficient cars but they weren't selling like the larger vehicles were. If it weren't for these high gas prices Americans would still be buying large. Why do you think the foreign companies are building them now, too? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 503 Registered: 07-2007 |
People will buy what they can afford to drive. Unless you think that gas is going to head back down to $2 a gallon again, the likelihood of a resurgence in the truck and SUV markets is pretty low. | ||
Rid0617 Member Username: Rid0617 Post Number: 90 Registered: 03-2008 |
I think Obama is a better choice of the 3. Honestly I could like my child to know a President that isn't a Clinton or a Bush and that's sad when considered the child is 15 | ||
English Member Username: English Post Number: 731 Registered: 10-2003 |
Novine's right. Google "Peak Oil". The Big Three need to re-invest in green transportation options, and lead... but I think the Japanese are beating them handily at it. I was hopeful for Ford's prospects, but it doesn't seem as if they are catching up. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 4204 Registered: 06-2004 |
Define "green transportation." The only thing the Japanese really have are mpg ratings that have been matched by the domestics and hybrid technology that the domestics now also have. The Japanese don't have flex fuel or biofuel capability, which Ford started rolling out back in 2000. | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 567 Registered: 07-2004 |
http://www.barackobama.com/iss ues/urbanpolicy/ Setting automotive issues aside, Obama is the only candidate with an urban policy in his platform. I think that a black man with a background built in Chicago has the best chance by far of doing something positive for the city of Detroit. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3077 Registered: 04-2006 |
Goldman Sachs analysts project oil to hit $200/barrel. If that happens it will translate into $6/gallon gas. Barack Obama is the least of Detroit's worries... | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1601 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Case in point:  Toyota Sequoia, 13/18 MPG quote: That's not how I remember it. Increasing world-wide demand drove the price of a barrel of oil from $4 in 1970 to $48 a decade later. As a result, drilling activity in Texas exploded and their oil production climbed. Then the Saudis decided to take advantage of the rise in prices. They opened the valves on their already tapped fields and ramped up production from 6 million barrels per day in the early 80s to 9 million bpd in 1984. The result was a world-wide oil-glut which caused the price of a barrel of oil to drop to $12 a barrel by January 1986. The collapse in oil prices had nothing to do with changes in consumer vehicle preferences. | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 2068 Registered: 05-2005 |
quote: consumers are already trying to unload their SUV's and get into something smaller before fuel prices get worse, this is not a short lived trend, its a paradigm shift. the import's SUV entries are essentially late to the segment, one of the few where american automakers excelled (probably not in the least part due to the relative low-tech of the vehicles, based on truck frames, no need for weight savings, etc). I have a hard time beleiving that there weren't people in the offices of the big three that didn't see the conditions that we are facing now that are driving up fuel costs and hurting sales of large vehicles. 'course it would take years for a company to thoroughly react to todays conditions (Message edited by gravitymachine on May 07, 2008) | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1602 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Contrary to popular opinion, the people who toil in the "Big 3" are not stupid. They know that the risk of a change in consumer demand is always out there and they try to measure it and make projections as to when and how much the demand might swing from truck-based products to car-based vehicles. But keep in mind that the vehicle architectures of trucks and cars are very different and they are not typically built in the same assembly plant. Therefore, they cannot just flip a switch and change an assembly plant from producing 250,000 trucks per year to an equivalent number of cars - it takes at least half a billion dollars and two years lead time to do that. So the questions becomes, while looking at the trend data, at what point does an automaker make the call and roll the dice to switch over 250,000 units of production away from truck to cars? In a growing market, when trying to time the market two or more years in advance, these kinds of decisions are not so risky. However, in a situation of declining market share like the "Big 3" finds itself, you could be betting the future of the company if you try to lead and anticipate a large swing in consumer preferences that doesn't materialize when you expected it to happen. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 740 Registered: 06-2005 |
Ask yourself a few simple questions ... 1) Are you and your family better off today and within the past 8 years, compared to the time before that? My family and I - No, we are worse off in the past 8 years. 2) Is the country and national economic health better off today and within the past 8 years, compared to the time before that? My opinion - No, America is in 2 wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) that has become a huge money pit. The budget surplus had turned into a deep budget deficit. The world view of America is largely negative. The American people are losing their jobs, their homes, the value of their currency and their quality of life. 3) Who were the people in our national leadership positions during this past 8 years? Mr. George W. Bush and associates. The future of the United States belongs to the voting decisions of fellow Americans. At this juncture of the crossroads, you either go with someone closely resembles GWB's policies and conduct, or you go with someone completely opposite in order to implement total change. | ||
Xd_brklyn Member Username: Xd_brklyn Post Number: 399 Registered: 10-2003 |
At least there's communication and some interest, so that's a start. It's a lot better than getting the cold shoulder that Bush gave the auto makers. How long did it take for him to meet with the domestics? Six, seven years? | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 984 Registered: 05-2004 |
How can you do any worse than what we've had these last few years? Anybody but Bush. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 251 Registered: 08-2006 |
Sen. Obama has proposed spending an additional $287B annually. He is good at spending. For instance, he has voted to spend $300B on the Iraq war. That is $300B less to spend on domestic programs. The largest category of Sen. Obama's proposed new annual spending would be $104B on infrastructure. Sen. Obama's proposed Spending by Category http://www.ntu.org/main/page.p hp?PageID=141 | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1604 Registered: 12-2005 |
Obama - and all of the others who think that the solution to our overdependence on oil can be solved by forcing manufacturers to stop making SUVs and large passenger cars - conveniently forgets that gasoline consumption in the US accounts for only about 45% of our total petroleum usage. Apparently, the "Big 3" make a much easier target to pummel during election campaigns and in the halls of Congress. | ||
Patrick Member Username: Patrick Post Number: 5376 Registered: 10-2003 |
When in doubt, bash Detroit. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4274 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Which is only 11.3% of global petroleum consumption. Peanuts! Drive on! | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1605 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: And if we outlaw SUVs and large cars like Obama's hemi-equipped Chrysler 300, US gasoline consumption might plummet to 11.0% of global petroleum consumption. Problem solved? Instead of legislative "solutions" that target selected products and/or the fleet MPG of an industry that represents less than half of the problem, let the pricing mechanisms inherent in the petroleum supply and demand equation drive efficiency improvements across the full spectrum of energy consumption. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4281 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Yeah, they have these efficiency improvements already. They're called "walking", or "buying produce that's not flown-in from California". You get the idea. Magic is NOT a solution. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 11624 Registered: 10-2003 |
Neither Dems or Repubs or any individual candidate will help the domestic auto industry or the city. The industry is an easy target for both parties and the city has voted Dem for so long and will continue to do so that the Dems take it for granted and the Repubs ignore it. | ||
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago Post Number: 25 Registered: 01-2008 |
"Define "green transportation." The only thing the Japanese really have are mpg ratings that have been matched by the domestics and hybrid technology that the domestics now also have. The Japanese don't have flex fuel or biofuel capability, which Ford started rolling out back in 2000." "Flex fules" and biofuels are not green!•• They are very destructive. In Brazil, the poorest still go hungry as all their food is either exported or made into ethanol, all while tearing down more virgin forest to make way for more corn production! The same thing in other countries as well. And its not green in and of itself either. Ethanol and biofuels still burn dirty, and contribute more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Lets not fool ourselves: the green solution is NOT easy. But the good thing is much of the technology is already there, but a huge problem is lack of investment, subsidies, research, etc. And as far as the auto companies are concerned (both Detroit and foreign), green/clean cars are just a niche market. Treating the global warming and peak oil crisis as simply a market niche is not acceptable. We need a fundamental transformation in our economy. Meaning, new infrastructure, new ways of producing and allocating resources, and yes maybe even new ways of organizing our economy. Sure, maybe the current economic order will survive, and will find solutions to global warming. But I honestly don't think that will happen unless the poorest, most vulnerable people on Earth... you know the 2, 3, 4 billion... bear the brunt of the costs (and quite possibly with their lives). --- its a sad thought, but not the only solution. I hope a new economic system will take root, that upholds values of environmental sustainability, solidarity, equity, diversity, and democracy. I hope a participatory economy takes root, one in which every single person (regardless of how many billions of dollars they have) has control over the decisions that affect them in the proportion to the degree in which they are affected. Oh, I forget we were talking about Obama. Do I think he will be good for Detroit. Hell yeah, at least compared to Bush/McCain/Clinton. But will he solve all our problems? Hell no, thats our job.. you know, the people. | ||
Detrola Member Username: Detrola Post Number: 72 Registered: 02-2006 |
As long as Detroit continues to vote for the likes of Conyers (both), Kilpatrick (both), Obama will be no better for Detroit than anyone else. The problem is of Detroit and so shall the answer be of Detroit. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2006 |
Any benefit (money) from Washington or any other source will quickly end up in KK's or one of his contractors pocket. I really dont think any of the three running, if elected will make any difference. This is the first time in my life that not I may not vote. But when you consider the way the Bush got blamed for everything, no one in their right mind would run for president. | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 1169 Registered: 08-2007 |
Does anyone know if the tax break is still in place for small business folks to buy trucks and SUVs? The tax break was created in the early 1980's before the explosion of the SUV market. I remember that there was provision that allowed small businesses to write-off maybe 1/2 of the cost. That provision was inserted to encourage farmers to buy pick-ups, but the effect was to allow every attorney, CPA, Ad Agency and hair salon owner to move from passenger cars and into SUVs. On the subject of barak, I think his address to the Detroit Economic Club was pretty clear. Our dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue and that the skill and power of the American auto industry needs to be refocused to help get us out of what even GWB has called "our addiction to oil". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Al_PMBcVDFA | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 633 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:Bingo. Many of Detroit's issues are the result of local policies. Many are the result of federal policies. Most are a combination of the two. Even if nothing changes at the local level, I think an Obama presidency will make it much easier to get things done in Detroit. (edited to fix link) (Message edited by bearinabox on May 07, 2008) | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 4207 Registered: 06-2004 |
Why is the auto industry be expected to single handedly solve the oil dependency problem? Shouldn't airframe manufacturers have to meet fuel performance criteria? The government is dictating we all have to switch to digital tv. Shouldn't it facilitate or require distribution of alternative energies? | ||
401don Member Username: 401don Post Number: 429 Registered: 11-2007 |
The only thing differentiating the domestic manufacturers from everybody else has been their ability to sell profitable trucks and suvs. Yet they still lost money the last several yrs. If small, fuel efficient vehicles account for half their sales they're history. It's not just Toyota killing the domestics. It's the Koreans and soon to be Chinese and Indians. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 1018 Registered: 10-2003 |
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20080507/OPINI ON01/805070322/1007/OPINION quote: | ||
Wilus1mj Member Username: Wilus1mj Post Number: 265 Registered: 05-2005 |
If Obama keeps bashing Detroit and John Mccain visits the state and saying the US automakers can be #1 again, Democrats will lose Michigan for the first time in 20 yrs | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 2352 Registered: 09-2006 |
Which they should considering the blunders of the Democrats in handling this states primary. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 1019 Registered: 10-2003 |
It has become very fashionable to criticize American auto companies for their focus on building trucks and large cars, instead of smaller economy cars. The critics claim that American car companies are greedy, short-sighted, ignorant, etc; and they completely ignore the real reasons for the foreign dominance in the economy car market. quote: http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/2 6/news/companies/pluggedin_tay lor_ford.fortune/index.htm The American auto companies have a much higher labor cost per vehicle, and this higher cost is fairly consistent, regardless of what type of vehicle is being produced. The UAW workers building a $13,000 economy car are paid the same wages and benefits as the UAW workers building a $35,000 SUV. If Toyota sells their vehicles for 25% more than it costs to produce them, it breaks down like this: An economy car costs $10,000 to make, sells for $12,500, Toyota makes $2,500. A midsize car costs $20,000 to make, sells for $25,000, Toyota makes $5,000. A SUV costs $30,000 to make, sells for $40,000, Toyota makes $10,000. ------------ If GM makes those same vehicles, and sells them for the same price, it breaks down like this: An economy car costs $12,900 to make, sells for $12,500, GM loses $400. A midsize car costs $22,900 to make, sells for $25,000, GM makes $2,100. A SUV costs $32,900 to make, sells for $40,000, GM makes $7,100. ------- Due to the vast difference in labor costs, it has been nearly impossible for American car companies to compete in the domestic economy car market. As a result, they have focused on the large car and truck market, where the higher labor costs can be more easily absorbed. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 4213 Registered: 06-2004 |
Those numbers are no longer true and they also ignore the Asian imports, which still outnumber the Asian badged units built here. The most recent UAW contract has substantially reduced labor costs and the down dollar would drive the import costs up if there wasn't currency manipulation going on. Toyota's recently announced price increases are pretty sleight, especially on the higher end cars. | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 1129 Registered: 06-2004 |
Obama might be better for the city but.. you heard it here first.. Ray's gauranteed election prediction: Obama wins the democratic primary and is crushed by Mccain in a landslide. I like Obama and may even vote for him, but let's face it: he's young, inexperienced, ultra-left wing, African American. The poor dems are drinking their own Koolaid. America is not ready for this guy. He will be crushed by mainstream general election voters in big states like New York, California, Ohio, PA, FLA and MI, who piously tell pollsters that they will vote for a Black man but really won't. Sorry to be the messenger. Don't shoot me. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 986 Registered: 05-2004 |
Yeah and McCain is an experienced politician who will change his positions depending on which way the right wingers want him too. He'll do and say anything that'll get him over the top. That summer gas tax idea was really stupid and a blatant pandering position. He's for immigration bill , now against it etc. I guess if folks voted for Bush TWICE, he may get elected. Experience in this case doesn't mean a damn thing... just more experience in screwing tax payers. |
