Obama asks Bush to bailout auto industry?

[Freezer-TPF-]

What a gigantic clusterfrack.

[cheeba]

I'm only talking about the survey you linked, which appears to use a different method of defining manufacturer and the Powers survey.

Where are you getting this?

FWIW, I'm inclined to believe that Toyota wins both make and manufacturer based on looking at the recaps of the two surveys.

The only basis you have for this conclusion is your own bias against American manufacturers. Nothing provided in the two links would give reason to make that argument.

[noxiousdog]

I'm only talking about the survey you linked, which appears to use a different method of defining manufacturer and the Powers survey. Just reiterating that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

FWIW, I'm inclined to believe that Toyota wins both make and manufacturer based on looking at the recaps of the two surveys.

Worst case scenario is that GM is a very close #2. Big deal.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm only talking about the survey you linked, which appears to use a different method of defining manufacturer and the Powers survey.

Where are you getting this?

They have different top manufacturers. So they must be using a different method. Of course, it looks like the Powers survey data is more recent (Polk uses MY 2007) so it might not matter. Also, the fact that they are survey companies with proprietary data leads one to believe they use different methods.

FWIW, I'm inclined to believe that Toyota wins both make and manufacturer based on looking at the recaps of the two surveys.

The only basis you have for this conclusion is your own bias against American manufacturers. Nothing provided in the two links would give reason to make that argument.

That's interesting because I have never bought a foriegn car and have tend to have a bias towards American manufacturers in my own purchases. I grew up in the shadow of Detroit industry. I haven't driven anything but a Mercury for, let's see...14 years. I'm not currently planning on buying a car any time soon but if I do, it will most likely be an "American" make. The conclusion I'm drawing is based on the two articles and not any bias I may have.

Looking at the Powers survey, they come right out and say Toyota had better manufacturer numbers. Looking at the Polk survey, Toyota/Toyota makes won the most categories (see table), despite the declaration that GM was the preferred manufacturer (I tend to think it's because the 2007 MY was still fullsize heavy and GM took those categories). Assuming it's not a 50/50 split down the middle just because one has GM and the other has Toyota, it has to go one way or the other. I see Toyota. Also, the Powers article may be more recent (again, it's light on dates).

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm only talking about the survey you linked, which appears to use a different method of defining manufacturer and the Powers survey. Just reiterating that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

FWIW, I'm inclined to believe that Toyota wins both make and manufacturer based on looking at the recaps of the two surveys.

Worst case scenario is that GM is a very close #2. Big deal.

Toyota is a brand. GM isn't. More importantly, GM is a declining #2, Toyota is a rising #1.

Most appropriate here is that GM is hemorrhaging cash. Toyota is profitable (last I saw).

With every day this bailout tallk goes on, the Big 3 lose customers. Nardelli himself said Tuesday that chapter 11 would absolutely destroy faith in any company that declared it and that recovery would be impossible. As it is, the appearance of trouble is squeezing them. Sure he's dancing for money but the CEO of Chrysler should know what he's talking about in that regard.

[The Preacher]

This is the auto industry's own doing. Newsflash: Holy shit, customers are fickle! Seriously? That's why smart companies, like Honda or Toyota, have a portfolio of desirable vehicles so that they can push on one lever while pulling back on another.

You understand that GM has a higher loyalty rate than any of the Japanese companies, right?

Except when they don't?

Huh.

Whichever research company you go with, GM and Toyota are the top two. They don't have a lineup of undesirable cars as you say. In fact, they are very good at keeping their customers in a GM vehicle.

They're good at keeping the customers who still bought GM five years ago (or whatever the appropriate time frame is for their last auto purchase). That's the percentage game. But the journey away from American auto began long ago and so my guess is that percentages belie the story. And if American car owners are so loyal, then GM should have no trouble raising prices. Unless low prices is why those left buying American are still buying. Given that the US manufacturers are doing the heaviest rebating and there is a very compelling argument that it is how they keep customers. Not all loyalty is created equally.

And let's also face the reality that for the first time ever, Americans now buy more foreign than domestic cars. How does that jive with such great loyalty metrics? Does it mean that once you go PAC you never go back?

[cheeba]

Given that the US manufacturers are doing the heaviest rebating and there is a very compelling argument that it is how they keep customers. Not all loyalty is created equally.

So we're just gonna make up stuff now? Toyota's loyalty is somehow better than GM's loyalty? WTF? Where is this compelling argument? I'm pretty sure you don't have the data to make this argument, so do you have a link? Is it a better argument than GM's quality being right up there with Toyota and Honda?

[The Preacher]

Given that the US manufacturers are doing the heaviest rebating and there is a very compelling argument that it is how they keep customers. Not all loyalty is created equally.

So we're just gonna make up stuff now? Toyota's loyalty is somehow better than GM's loyalty? WTF? Where is this compelling argument? I'm pretty sure you don't have the data to make this argument, so do you have a link? Is it a better argument than GM's quality being right up there with Toyota and Honda?

Yes, in fact, Toyota's loyalty is better. And it's pretty obvious to anyone reading the financial statements. Toyota makes a 13% gross profit compared to GM's 8%. Toyota's OI is 2.8% of revenue and GM's is NEGATIVE 2.3%. So yeah, if you have to buy someone's loyalty, what kind of loyalty is it? If GM had quality and brand loyalty with its customers, I'd assume they'd be able to exert additional price pressures and drive up their financial metrics. But they don't so they can't.

I tried to do the same with Honda but they are wildly better metrics probably due to their smaller item sales ("seadoos", motorcycles, etc.).

[noxiousdog]

I don't care what kind of loyalty you have. If your labor costs twice as much, while not being able to pass along the cost, you're fucked.

[cheeba]

So yeah, if you have to buy someone's loyalty, what kind of loyalty is it?

Did you notice in the Polk loyalty metric that GM has been tops in loyalty for the past 8 years? You sure they've been buying that loyalty all that time? They do of course run loyalty programs with discounts, as all car makers do. I should mention that one of my primary duties as a project manager with a market research firm back a couple years ago was to track the efficacy of these loyalty programs for GM.

If GM had quality and brand loyalty with its customers, I'd assume they'd be able to exert additional price pressures and drive up their financial metrics.

I don't understand why you keep arguing that GM has no quality. Look up any market research survey in recent times. And the loyalty study you yourself cited says that at worst GM is right behind Toyota in loyalty. So why are you stuck on that?

And loyalty doesn't work in such a way as to be able to raise prices on the vehicles. Vehicles are made to match price points, and they do not change much. The economy sedan will always be the economy sedan and its price point will always remain around the same level. With GM, their loyalty means they get a customer right out of college who buys a Chevrolet Cobalt, and when he gets a decent job and a wife he buys a Malibu. When they drop some kids they buy a more profitable minivan or SUV. When they make more money they get a trailer and a more profitable Silverado. And so on and so on.

The problem is that chain they relied on has been snapped as people are now eschewing the profitable vehicles for the volume cars which don't make much money. Combine that with much higher wages for its employees and you have a company in trouble.

[The Preacher]

So yeah, if you have to buy someone's loyalty, what kind of loyalty is it?

Did you notice in the Polk loyalty metric that GM has been tops in loyalty for the past 8 years? You sure they've been buying that loyalty all that time? They do of course run loyalty programs with discounts, as all car makers do. I should mention that one of my primary duties as a project manager with a market research firm back a couple years ago was to track the efficacy of these loyalty programs for GM.

I'm not saying that it is a prescriptive loyalty program. I'm saying that the final negotiated selling prices are possibly the most significant reason that GM maintains its loyalty. Price loyalty might be a better term than "buying loyalty" but it amounts to the same thing: lower margin.

If GM had quality and brand loyalty with its customers, I'd assume they'd be able to exert additional price pressures and drive up their financial metrics.

I don't understand why you keep arguing that GM has no quality. Look up any market research survey in recent times. And the loyalty study you yourself cited says that at worst GM is right behind Toyota in loyalty. So why are you stuck on that?

I'm saying that the loyalty is not based on quality or the strength of the brand as much as it might be based on price. People are loyal to lower end brands all the time but not because of the brand or the quality. That's far different from saying there is no quality -- and let's be honest, the issue of quality isn't of reality, it's of perception and American manufacturers are still fighting that battle.

And loyalty doesn't work in such a way as to be able to raise prices on the vehicles. Vehicles are made to match price points, and they do not change much. The economy sedan will always be the economy sedan and its price point will always remain around the same level. With GM, their loyalty means they get a customer right out of college who buys a Chevrolet Cobalt, and when he gets a decent job and a wife he buys a Malibu. When they drop some kids they buy a more profitable minivan or SUV. When they make more money they get a trailer and a more profitable Silverado. And so on and so on.

So they should be seeing steady margin expansion from the people constantly moving up and choosing higher end cars. And yet they clearly don't. Why is that? Are they growing their new entrants at a faster rate than their higher end, despite their relatively flat revenue of the past 5 years? Is more loyalty coming from people sticking with the Cobalt equivalents than those climbing the economic ladder? Help me understand where this margin expansion is disappearing because if you show me the numbers, I'm more than willing to hop on your side.

Furthermore, loyalty based on the brand cache or quality does allow for up pricing. That's why you invest in it. Look at Apple, Burberry, Starbucks or Evian. People are willing to pay more for something they perceive as better (and I agree that it is perception based and not actually "better") or more upscale or higher quality. The Big 3 stuck themselves squarely in the land of commodity, while its competitors are outmaneuvering them to bring some cache to the market for which they can and do upcharge. You can get a thousand different MP3 players, bags, cups of coffee, bottles of water or cars. Some are forced to play the price game to keep people coming back, but some exert stronger forces that allow them to charge significantly higher amounts for the same utility -- of course, in difficult financial times as these, it is incredibly interesting to see who can survive at this game.

The problem is that chain they relied on has been snapped as people are now eschewing the profitable vehicles for the volume cars which don't make much money. Combine that with much higher wages for its employees and you have a company in trouble.

And yet Toyota and Honda are making higher margins on these same classes of car and doing it profitably. Those two even charge more for the same amount of car (give or take) despite cheaper labor because not all loyalty is created equal. I'm not sure why this last part is even in question. It's not just loyalty is loyalty is loyalty and GM's loyalty is 44.976%. It's about why people are loyal and its multivariate and it very much affects the value one can obtain from that loyalty.

[Dan_Theman]

I have to back up cheeba at least in part on this one. I found a listing for 2007 that places GM as #2 in brand loyalty. Here's the link to the article, and within it the artcile states that GM had been experiencing an upward trend in loyalty. Ford, for what it's worth, seems to be scoring quite well in brand quality as found in this article. GM didn't come up too much in terms of super high rankings on google, although the JD Power rankings place Cadillac (GM), Chevrolet (GM), Lincoln (Ford), and Buick (GM) as above average in their 2008 Initial Quality Study. Of course, whether initial quality translates into long term reliability is another question.

[The Preacher]

I have to back up cheeba at least in part on this one. I found a listing for 2007 that places GM as #2 in brand loyalty. Here's the link to the article, and within it the artcile states that GM had been experiencing an upward trend in loyalty. Ford, for what it's worth, seems to be scoring quite well in brand quality as found in this article. GM didn't come up too much in terms of super high rankings on google, although the JD Power rankings place Cadillac (GM), Chevrolet (GM), Lincoln (Ford), and Buick (GM) as above average in their 2008 Initial Quality Study. Of course, whether initial quality translates into long term reliability is another question.

I'm afraid my point is being missed and/or I'm doing a poor job of explaining it. It's not whether they have the second highest repurchase rate (the definition of "brand loyalty" in the study). They do. Unqualified agreement. Check mark. But the question is why and what that implies about their "brand strength", which I use as a different more marketing-focused term that implies not who bought what brand consecutively, but rather the emotional attachment to the brand. Apple has brand strength and high pricing, compared to Samsung or Creative MP3 players or Dell computers. Starbucks has high brand strength and high pricing, compared to Dunkin' Donuts. Chevy and Pontiac? I think their value is low price and low brand strength when compared to Toyota or Honda. Cadillac has less strength when compared to Audi or Lexus (not sure where I'd put Acura in there).

My apologies if by using the word brand in two different lights is making my point confusing. I can definitely be trying to make you read my mind on that one.

[Dan_Theman]

I think I can see where you're coming from, Preacher - after all, my personal impression of GM and Ford cars is somewhat negative. I assume people buy them because either they're shopping for a truck and both companies have marketed themselves magnificently to that crowd, or they're buying a car from them as a cheaper alternative to what I consider to be generally nicer import options.

[Austin]

I'm loyal to GM. I bought my Chevy Equinox instead of some competing models in order to get away from my PoS Saab lease early and without penalties, having to change the tires tyres, some scratches and dings etc... .

[cheeba]

Chevy and Pontiac? I think their value is low price and low brand strength when compared to Toyota or Honda.

Chevrolet is the highest brand for GM. According to the JD Power survey you cited, Chevy is 5th overall, which is behind Toyota and Honda, but isn't too bad. The thing is, we've nothing to cross-tab this with brand loyalty. That Chevy's brand is behind Honda and Toyota does not indicate anything about Chevy's quality. It's about perception. In fact, I know there used to be a study by one of the research firms about this. They cross-tabbed quality with perception of quality, and found the German cars, specifically VW, was the most overrated brand - that is, it had the biggest difference between perceived quality and actual quality. Not surprisingly, GM was the worst - they had the worst perception for the level of quality.

We don't have any numbers, nor have I ever seen an auto study (doesn't mean it doesn't exist, no doubt the auto manufacturers know this information - their market research is amazing) which indicates how important brand perception is to loyalty.

Perception is a lot of the problem, though. It's been incredibly difficult to get it through to people that American manufactures can make and are making excellent vehicles that rival the best in the world. Just look at the Chevrolet Malibu. Nearly everyone agrees it's around the same quality as the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry. Some like it better than the Japanese, others think it's slightly worse, but all agree they're all on the same level. Motor Trend Car of the Year and all that. It's roughly the same price as the Camry and Accord. And yet the workers who made the Malibu make around 50% more than those who worked on the Camry and Accord.

[LordMortis]

And yet Toyota and Honda are making higher margins on these same classes of car and doing it profitably. Those two even charge more for the same amount of car (give or take) despite cheaper labor because not all loyalty is created equal. I'm not sure why this last part is even in question. It's not just loyalty is loyalty is loyalty and GM's loyalty is 44.976%. It's about why people are loyal and its multivariate and it very much affects the value one can obtain from that loyalty.

I agree with this unequivocally. This is exactly what blows my mind. And this exact perception is sold as positive reinforcment to purchase transplant vehicles and that US manufacturers suck because of it.

On a positive not Pelosi actually did something postive yesterday. She sent everyone home and wants to revisit the crisis in December. This was absofuckinglutely the right move. Heaven forbid the American Auto Industry and Congress actually take the time to think things through and make a plan beyond throwing money at a problem.

[Carpet_pissr]

What kind of loyalty is being bandied about here? Loyalty to the company because people love the quality of their product, or loyalty to "buying American"? I know a boatload of people who would ONLY buy an American car, even if it was made out of mud, before they would buy a furrin one.

[Combustible Lemur]

I agree with this unequivocally. This is exactly what blows my mind. And this exact perception is sold as positive reinforcment to purchase transplant vehicles and that US manufacturers suck because of it.

On a positive not Pelosi actually did something postive yesterday. She sent everyone home and wants to revisit the crisis in December. This was absofuckinglutely the right move. Heaven forbid the American Auto Industry and Congress actually take the time to think things through and make a plan beyond throwing money at a problem.

hmm, the radio news seemed to think that this was used as a homework assignment for the auto industry, that they come up with plans on how they are actually changing their business model and if its good, congress will consider bailout discussions in december.

That probly means when GM puts the proper heading at the top of the page congress will give them a 70 billion dollar bailout because at least they tried.

[LordMortis]

hmm, the radio news seemed to think that this was used as a homework assignment for the auto industry, that they come up with plans on how they are actually changing their business model and if its good, congress will consider bailout discussions in december.

That probly means when GM puts the proper heading at the top of the page congress will give them a 70 billion dollar bailout because at least they tried.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I think it was good Pelosi put the kabosh on just giving the American auto industry a loan without proper insight and consideration. I'll believe she did it for the right reasons when I see it, but it was good just the same.

More likely Ford and GM will hang Chrysler out to dry in an attempt to demonstrate how if they don't let Chrysler fail the entire industry will collapse. Chrysler will be gutted and sold in pieces and dismantled. Ford and GM will get to split a loan that promises to meet California EPA standards and nationalizes those standards.

Sadly, I don't think they will improve the business model because of all the talk I am hearing, restructuing for a smaller aggragate market is not on the top of anyone's lists. Congress, will see the EPA standards and a coup against Dingle in the Department of Energy as a victory though and will pass the bill after much discussion and with many angry southern republicans who have made promises to not let these loans happen.

[Pyperkub]

Interestingly enough, the $70/hr being used to villify the unions is a bit out of of whack:

The figure is wildly misleading.

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers...

...But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila...

...Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people...

... To be sure, we've known about these demographics for a while. Management and labor in Detroit should have figured out a solution it long ago. But while the Big Three were late in addressing this problem, they did address it eventually.

Notice how, in this article, I've constantly referred to 2007 figures? There's a good reason. In 2007, the Big Three signed a breakthrough contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW) designed, once and for all, to eliminate the compensation gap between domestic and foreign automakers in the U.S.

The agreement sought to do so, first, by creating a private trust for financing future retiree benefits--effectively removing that burden from the companies' books. The auto companies agreed to deposit start-up money in the fund; after that, however, it would be up to the unions to manage the money. And it was widely understood that, given the realities of investment returns and health care economics, over time retiree health benefits would likely become less generous.

[Dan_Theman]

I was wondering where all of these laborers making a $140k/year were at.

[cheeba]

average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income

Misleading. Ignores overtime.

[pengo]

Hopefully hummer can be one automaker that goes out of business. They have made their way to Australia, and I was stuck behind one yesterday. Everytime I see one, I dispise whoever is driving it. As it just screams that they don't care about the enviroment, are totally selfish greedy fat pig. If they made the hummer a turbo diesel and got the economy of a golf, I wouldn't mind so much.

[Kraken]

I was wondering where all of these laborers making a $140k/year were at.

When I grew up in Michigan in the 60s and into the 70s, your average GM factory rat could expect:

A nice house in the suburbs
A car for each family member old enough to drive
A riding lawnmower
Two snowmobiles
A boat
A summer cottage
College for the kids
Retire by 50.

I don't know what the wage was then, but it was certainly the ticket to the good life. Someone who worked on the line at GM had it made.

[Patchfoot]

If we have to save most of the US auto makers can we not save Ford at least? Please? Of all the broke ass cars I've owned in my life none have infuriated me like Fords do. I've never heard anything different from Ford owners except those who have majorly drank the kool aid.

Not to mention those damn F150s...

[cheeba]

If we have to save most of the US auto makers can we not save Ford at least? Please? Of all the broke ass cars I've owned in my life none have infuriated me like Fords do. I've never heard anything different from Ford owners except those who have majorly drank the kool aid.

Look at the quality of Jaguar before and after Ford got a hold of them.

[noxiousdog]

Interestingly enough, the $70/hr being used to villify the unions is a bit out of of whack:

A benefit is a benefit. I'm sure as hell not getting a pension or medical post employment.

[Peacedog]

A benefit is a benefit. I'm sure as hell not getting a pension or medical post employment.

Yeah.

Also, if the Foreign workers had their "wage cost" computer the same way as GM/American, then there's no quirks whatsoever. I'd be curious to see if this is the case, and of course I'd be more interesting in seeing wage-cost by some more-refined metric (broken down by class of employee/position/whatever, perhaps).

[LordMortis]

Interestingly enough, the $70/hr being used to villify the unions is a bit out of of whack:

A benefit is a benefit. I'm sure as hell not getting a pension or medical post employment.

A benefit is a benefit but when considering their hourly wages to others hourly wages you ought to compare benefits to benefits just like you are now. Then you can consider how much you want to do their jobs with that wage associated. Personally, I think they are well compensated and would love to do that sort of work for that sort of wage. At the same time, I don't think they are grossly over paid even if I do think they are overpaid.

[LawBeefaroni]

Interestingly enough, the $70/hr being used to villify the unions is a bit out of of whack:

A benefit is a benefit. I'm sure as hell not getting a pension or medical post employment.

A benefit is a benefit but when considering their hourly wages to others hourly wages you ought to compare benefits to benefits just like you are now. Then you can consider how much you want to do their jobs with that wage associated.

Not when you're the one paying. If you're going to look at the manufacturer as a going concern, needing a bailout, etc, paying $70/hr to a line worker has to be looked at. Even if half isn't salary, you're still paying it out.

The question is:
Can an auto manufacturer compete if its workers are costing $70/hour to build a car?

Not:
Are salary and benefits totalling $70/hr a fair wage?

[noxiousdog]

And let's not forget that those wages+benefits are negotiated. If they wanted more in hourly wage and less in medical and pension, they should ask for it as such.

[LordMortis]

Not when you're the one paying. If you're going to look at the manufacturer as a going concern, needing a bailout, etc, paying $70/hr to a line worker has to be looked at. Even if half isn't salary, you're still paying it out.

The question is:
Can an auto manufacturer compete if its workers are costing $70/hour to build a car?

Not:
Are salary and benefits totalling $70/hr a fair wage?

There are lots of things to consider when looking at the bailout (loan). One is salary reduction. One is scaling back on workforce to scale back on production. One is the cost/benefit of retooling plants. One is the engaging the problem of credit to allow capital to flow through the supply chain. One is the cost of maintaining the supply chain. Honestly, the most important one of those things that is going to return the OEMs to profitablity in my opinion is finding a way to successfully scale back on production as the main focus of the a new business model. Of course, this will cost jobs and that won't look good to Congress.

[Isgrimnur]

And let's not forget that those wages+benefits are negotiated. If they wanted more in hourly wage and less in medical and pension, they should ask for it as such.

My experience with union dues is that it's based on a percentage of your pay. It benefits the unions to stump for higher pay, as well as being easier to motivate the base to back a tangible "now" benefit to the paycheck than some benefit that's not as easy to conceptualize.

[Kraken]

First thing I have heard from Obama that I hated.

I watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" I remember the part where the US auto industry was working on hybrid technology before Bush and as soon as he came into office they did some lobbying and stopped doing any research. They knew better, they choose wrong they should suffer.

/agree and i did as well.

The one thing that "Who Killed the Electic Car" pointed out that I didn't even think of was the parts manufacturing industry. I'm not certain how big the piece of the action is that the big auto makers have in that - but I assume it's big. Either way, they're all going down the toilet no matter what happens, even with a bailout.

Also, while the movie is completely in favor of electric cars and mostly from that perspective (since they couldn't get any of the manufacturers to talk about the issue at all) - some of the things presented are worth digging into to see just how corrupt Detroit is. Like the guy who invented the battery technology and sold it to them, and they basically just bought it to kill the patent off. That type of action makes me think they are getting what they deserve.

The hardest issue for me to reconcile is what happens to the workers and the pensions. I could care less about the execs or unions - they're both corrupt and are both responsible. When you give a man a pension, you're responsibility is to that man - not a shareholder, in my view. I would buy American-made cars if 1- they were 100% made in America. 2- the cars did not suck balls for me. I don't even own a car now and don't even want one... Mass transit is fine and I don't have to feed the machine.

I just saw "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night, and now I feel more strongly than ever that Congress must let GM die. But I expect that they will cave in and slide the cash because, what the hell, everybody else is getting some. GM will act contrite and sacrifice Saturn (which they never really liked anyway).

The movie was more informative than I expected, and spread the blame more fairly than I expected. I thought it would be a straightforward scree against GM.

It will be very interesting to see if "low demand" quietly kills the Chevy Volt a year or two after its introduction, or if GM's current troubles will force them to follow through with it this time.

[LawBeefaroni]

It will be very interesting to see if "low demand" quietly kills the Chevy Volt a year or two after its introduction, or if GM's current troubles will force them to follow through with it this time.

Everything that I've read indicates that the Volt sucks so I imagine GM will use it as their flagship green vehicle.

[Kraken]

It will be very interesting to see if "low demand" quietly kills the Chevy Volt a year or two after its introduction, or if GM's current troubles will force them to follow through with it this time.

Everything that I've read indicates that the Volt sucks so I imagine GM will use it as their flagship green vehicle.

It *is* a Chevy, after all. I predict that the Volt will become the Vega of our time.

[LordMortis]

I just saw "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night, and now I feel more strongly than ever that Congress must let GM die.

I hear this a lot. Why? Why is GM satan because of this movie?

[tjg_marantz]

I just saw "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night, and now I feel more strongly than ever that Congress must let GM die.

I hear this a lot. Why? Why is GM satan because of this movie?

Watch the movie and find out?

[LordMortis]

Watch the movie and find out?

Watching the movies is going to tell me why Ironrod would like to see Congress let GM die?