I work in auto sales. I sell Subaru. In 2008, Subaru was the only major US marketer to post a sales increase over the previouos year. I feel very fortunate to work in sales for this particular brand. Having said that, here is how the bailout of the US makers affects our sales.
US makers are selling automobiles at a loss. They have to do this to move their inventory. They are able to do this because the US government has bailed them out. So their prices are deeply discounted and they offer low finance rates. Their captive finance companies are offering low rates because, they too, have been bailed out by the government.
So, when a customer comes in to my dealership, they are comparing my auto to a car that is subsidized by the government. The American product costs far less and is far cheaper to finance. Now Subaru has sold at a higher price than most competitors for many years because our product has a great reputation for reliability, durability, and tremendous resale value. We still have those advantages, but the price advantage of the American makes is becoming so great that it is difficult to overcome. American companies are offering discounts from 25% to even 50% off the sticker.
Is it fair for the government to bail out the US makers and thereby drive out of business other makers? Will consumers be better off if this happens? Who has achieved high build quality cars and forced the US manufacturers to improve their quality? Was it foreign competitors or the US government? Who has forced US companies to take better care of their customers? Was it foreign competition or the US government? Who has lead the drive to alternate power technologies? Competiton or government? Who has pioneered improved safety in automobiles? Competition or the US government?
The American manufacturers are on the ropes because of their own short-sightedness. They should be allowed to go bankrupt if that is what the market determines. By sustaining these failed companies and creating unfair competition, the US government may bankrupt companies that have built fine products while saving companies that have served the public poorly. That is the possible unintended consequence of the government bailout.
Unintended Bailout Consequences
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by swaimj, Jan 23, 2009.
Page 1 of 3
-
I hear you mate. The big 3 continued to make 8 cylinder trucks and they are filling their car lots and dealers whilst the 4 and 6 cyclinder trucks are moving. I say sack the stupid executives, then re-finance and keep the people working.
Also, the government is not about to help Chrysler. I own a Chrysler mini-van and will the government help me get services when they let Chrysler go down?
Cheers,
Jim -
I'm with ya Swaimj
My wife and I were talking about this very same thing-------we told ourselves------"Dub" outta tell those big CEO's to go out and sell a car!!!"
I'm afraid even with the bailout-------giving money to these industries would be like rearrangeing the deck chairs on the Titanic---its just a matter of time before GM and Crysler go down to "Davey Jones' Locker!!" -
Talk about companies going down. I have a three year old Troy-Bilt snowblower. They cost $2,000.00..about 800. more than most other good snowblowers. They use a Tecumseh motor, however, and Tecumseh is going under. Now I will have an unrepairable $2,000.00 snowblower! Ain't no government help for me!
Cheers,
Jim -
Snowblower??? Whats a snowblower???
Way down here in the "Heart of Dixie"
:wavey: :type: -
Global warming....It's headin' your way. The snow, I mean...Wanna buy a snow blower,,,,,,,cheap?
Cheers,
Jim -
The only intended consequence of the "bailout," was increasing the power and scope of the government.
-
-
Not to worry, a fat stimulus check will be coming our way soon.
Then we can buy parts (if we can find them) and have services by our local mechanics for all the obsolete cars we will own.
HankD -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I don't think the idea of government power and control holds water. We are planning the same bailout in Canada and we have an ultra-conservative government led by a twice-born believer.
I truly believe it is intended to save 1000's of jobs and literal cities in our case.
Cheers,
Jim -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
What you are calling power is also known as responsibility.
Cheers,
Jim -
I think there is a distinction in bailing out the bankers and bailing out the auto companies.
Government does have a responsibility to provide a monetary system that is stable and reliable. The govenment left the bankers unregulated to a large degree. The bankers were irresponsible with this freedom, particularly in the area of mortgages and to whom they lent money. Since the bankers were irresponsible they brought about a collapse of the moneaty system. The government as a basic responsibility HAS to step in and do what is necessary to fix that system. Since the financial people have shown themselves incapable of handling the freedom they had, they must now live with more government regulation for the sake of everyone. I wish the bankers had been more responsible, but they were not, so now they suffer the loss of the freedom they had.
However, it is not the responsibility of the governement to ensure the stability of automobile makers. The automakers, particularly GM and Chrysler, made themselves uncompetitive through their own poor decisions. By bailing them out, the government is rewarding their mismanagement and punishing other companies that were operated well. This is as un-American as it can be. The government is propping up bankrupt companies, and by doing so they are going to force bankruptcy on companies that would thrive if the poorly run companies were allowed to die. This is very short-sighted. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Actually as everyone knows they were forced to make loans by the government, to those who would not have been otherwise credit worthy. Smells like the fault of government regulation to me. -
This is not just the USA. It is a global problem. Canada set regulations on the banks after the Great Depression and war years. Each depositor has a certain guarantee against their deposit.
The big three have been irresponisble for years. It doesn't even have to do with them. It has to do with all that they affect, small cities and their suppliers and hence huge unemployment...It affects the nations. Who cares about the big three? The writing has been on the wall for years, but no one was listening. Look how the executives of he big three took their own jets a short distance to a meeting with government. They are more than broke and still,,,,,,,,why ride a bus when a jet is handy?
Cheers,
Jim -
The government, in regard to a stable financial system, has to do whatever it needs to do to keep stability and avoid a complete economic collapse. What they are doing in the financial markets is necessary, though their efforts may ultimately fail anyway. We may yet face a complete financial collapse.
On the other hand, what the government is doing in the automotive market is completely different. Those bailouts are actually counterproductive, because with a shrinking car market in the US and abroad, the system actually NEEDS for some companies to fail. The government is propping up the weak ones at the expense of the strong ones. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
My major point it that, whoever is at fault in the failure of the financial system, the government has, as a basic duty, the job of fixing the financial system for the good of everyone. I am not sure they have actually fixed it or that they can at this point, but they have a responsibility to try. As for the auto industry, the government is actually hurting the overall health of the industry through the bailout of GM and Chrysler. -
IMO, The following is why we are in the dilemma in which we are presently caught up:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/gnazzo/2008/0606.html
HankD
Page 1 of 3