MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Um . . . I believe that's the issue the OP is addressing. Yeah, right there in Detroit, the corporate town. Well the unions did certainly do their share but mostly it was the crooks in office. It wasn't either one. There are 81 cars per every 100 people in the US. It's no surprise sales are sluggish when the market is flooded. There are 1 billion cars globally (for a population of 7 billion). In short -- we're covered. Since the 70s, Detroit made a series of poor (short-sighted) business decisions. The Big Three ruled the industry, but with double digit interest available, invested in the money market instead of expensive long term re-tooling for the cars people would be wanting. Germany, Sweden, Japan, and a few others, decided they'd rather settle for an 8% return but to plan a decade or two into the future. As such, they grabbed substantial market share, and those satisfied customers aren't lightly returning to the Big Three (I myself, a former GM customer, have bought Toyotas exclusively since 1993). Even today, there are market areas open that Detroit is ignoring, because they insist on making large, fuel-inefficient cars to push large ticket items on the country. So the new cheap, efficient cars are being made by China, and will start to appear here soon, further eroding market share. All of this could EASILY have happened in Detroit instead, but no, they cling instead to the outdated model, investing in propping it up. It's an industry that did itself in. Very good synopsis. Funny how so many find it easier to blame the 'greed; of the unions wanting a living wage rather then the investor class missing the boat through their greed.
|