Like I said a couple years ago... there is a set market for new vehicles in the US. Whether there are 10 manufacturers or 5... Americans will still by X number of vehicles.
I said this back then, and I say it now. We should have let GM go under. I would estimate 75% of GM employees and contractors would have found work under Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Kia, etc. All those manufacturers would have needed more trained employees to handle the increased workload when fought to absorb GM's market share.
Yea, some upper management would have lost their jobs. Some union guys would have to take a pay cut. Life is tough. When the local economy took a dump 10 years ago, my father-in-law lost his union truck driving job. He took it like a man and started his own business.
The federal government ought not have stepped in to private business the way they did before. They really ought to keep out of it in the future.
The CEO of FCA is right though... automakers are going to need to be innovative to keep up with government regulations. I believe Toyota and Ford(?) collaborated together to develop a new hybrid system. Collaborations or straight mergers are likely to be necessary in order for manufacturers to stay innovative and keep up with standards.
We need more than a few companies, or else we will have monopolies and higher prices. With competition they are forced to produce better products and keep prices down (relatively speaking).
I love the new Rams. I hope FCA finds a partner. But... I really hope that the federal government doesn't screw the taxpayers again like they did with the previous bailout nonsense.
Now... if the government wants to provide low interest rate LOANS (where the taxpayers don't lose money and there are set terms to pay the loan back IN FULL) for manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient engines... I would consider that.
