mrkoje wrote:
Just because it's coming from Rattner doesn't mean that it has to be biased. Rattner didn't just wake up one morning and come to the conclusion that Ford would be bankrupt if GM and Chrysler didn't get the bailouts. There was a lot of economic research that obviously led to this prediction.
Take this for example:
"Without financing during bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler would have had to go out of business, taking down many suppliers. That would have likely caused bankruptcies at the healthier automakers such Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), who would not have been able to get the parts they needed to build cars. That is why Ford went to Capitol Hill in late 2008 pushing for the rescue of its rivals."
another clicky
Again, I don't believe that Ford not taking the bailouts has anything to do with why you might see more Fords in one area over another. For example, in Bozeman, MT you drive a Subaru. It's to the point of being absolutely ridiculous. The last time I was down there I think I counted like 20 of them in a row on the 2 mile drive from the hotel to the museum. Why not as many Honda Accords or Toyotas per-capita? I think it might be more of a culture thing.
With all due respect, its simply a theory that the suppliers would go out of business too. Its a theory that was furthered by those that supported the bailout of GM and Chrysler.
One could also argue that if GM went out of business, Ford and Chrysler would "pick up the slack" and sell the cars that GM would have otherwise sold. I refuse to believe that GM buyers are so loyal to that brand that they would never buy another car again. Those buyers would eventually replace their cars with another brand. Ford and Chrysler would therefore sell more cars than they did in the past. Because they sell more cars, they buy more parts from suppliers. The suppliers would, therefore, continue to stay in business.
That being said, vehicle owners are brand loyal. In my area its a lot of Fords. Go into some northern or western Maryland you see more GM products. Go into central Pennsylvania its Dodge country. I'm not sure why some areas are so brand specific, but it is what it is.
At the end of the day, any of the truck brands out right now make a good product. If you need a one ton truck, Ford GM and Dodge all make competent products that you can depend on to meet your needs. If you need a half ton, Toyota and Nissan also make a very good product that you can depend upon.
Brand loyalty is blind stupidity. I'll admit that I am biased against GM because of the bailout. Its not just because of the fact that they took BILLIONS of dollars from the government that will never get paid back, its the reason why they needed the bailout. I figure that GM should be able to sell their products for a profit if they make a quality product. If GM makes a good product, how come they cannot sell it for a high enough price to cover all of their costs? Ford and Dodge are able to make a truck and sell it for a reasonable (I realize this is a subjective term...) price and still be able to pay their employees, taxes, overhead, infrastructure, suppliers, advertising etc. GM, for whatever reason, cannot sell their vehicles at their TRUE cost. True cost being the amount of money necessary to pay all the costs and overhead. Bottom line, the company is obviously mismanaged and should be allowed to go under. I refuse to support GM, not because I think the product is terrible, but because I think the company is poorly managed and should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy.
2015 Ram CTD
2015 Jayco 29QBS
