Is any other Honda enthusiast struck by the U.S. Congress's
and President's effort to shore up and nationalize companies
that make terrible automobiles and have long promoted
gluttony by consumers? Why not instead compel, one way or
another, mergers with Honda, Toyota, and Subaru or Nissan
such that they would agree to start new plants, employ many
of Detroit's former workers, and fill the gap that the
demise of Detroit's auto companies would unquestionably
cause?

 

Elle wrote:
> Is any other Honda enthusiast struck by the U.S. Congress's
> and President's effort to shore up and nationalize companies
> that make terrible automobiles and have long promoted
> gluttony by consumers? Why not instead compel, one way or
> another, mergers with Honda, Toyota, and Subaru or Nissan
> such that they would agree to start new plants, employ many
> of Detroit's former workers, and fill the gap that the
> demise of Detroit's auto companies would unquestionably
> cause?


And why would this interest Honda and the others? How much should they
charge the Big Three to even perform due diligence, let alone take on
their baggage?

 

I know in Europe Nissan customers are less than happy

When Renault of France "joined" Nissan we discovered that instead of
Renaults becoming more reliable and well built it was Nissan cars that were
built down to Froggie (apologies standards

"News" <News@Group.name> wrote in message
news:Lf2dnaFmSYmXwqPUnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>
> Elle wrote:
>> Is any other Honda enthusiast struck by the U.S. Congress's and
>> President's effort to shore up and nationalize companies that make
>> terrible automobiles and have long promoted gluttony by consumers? Why
>> not instead compel, one way or another, mergers with Honda, Toyota, and
>> Subaru or Nissan such that they would agree to start new plants, employ
>> many of Detroit's former workers, and fill the gap that the demise of
>> Detroit's auto companies would unquestionably cause?
>
>
> And why would this interest Honda and the others? How much should they
> charge the Big Three to even perform due diligence, let alone take on
> their baggage?

 

"News" <News@Group.name> wrote
> And why would this interest Honda and the others?

The government would pay Honda Et Al. for their interest as
opposed to paying money to the Big 3.

 

"Toommy" <ttto00mmy@googlemail.com> wrote
>I know in Europe Nissan customers are less than happy
>
> When Renault of France "joined" Nissan we discovered that
> instead of Renaults becoming more reliable and well built
> it was Nissan cars that were built down to Froggie
> (apologies standards

Keep the workers; throw out big 3 management.

 

Elle wrote:
> "News" <News@Group.name> wrote
>
>>And why would this interest Honda and the others?
>
>
> The government would pay Honda Et Al. for their interest as
> opposed to paying money to the Big 3.
>
>

I repeat, why would keeping competitors alive interest Honda et al?

 

"News" <News@Group.name> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "News" <News@Group.name> wrote
>>
>>>And why would this interest Honda and the others?
>>
>>
>> The government would pay Honda Et Al. for their interest
>> as opposed to paying money to the Big 3.
>
> I repeat, why would keeping competitors alive interest
> Honda et al?

No no; I am saying let the competitors die. Just move their
workers to Honda et al. and continue making Hondas, Toyotas
etc. but not the crappy Fords, GMs, and Chryslers.

If you have not been reading about the proposed Big 3
bailout, you are not going to understand this thread.

 

Elle wrote:
> "News" <News@Group.name> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>"News" <News@Group.name> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>And why would this interest Honda and the others?
>>>
>>>
>>>The government would pay Honda Et Al. for their interest
>>>as opposed to paying money to the Big 3.
>>
>>I repeat, why would keeping competitors alive interest
>>Honda et al?
>
>
> No no; I am saying let the competitors die. Just move their
> workers to Honda et al. and continue making Hondas, Toyotas
> etc. but not the crappy Fords, GMs, and Chryslers.
>
> If you have not been reading about the proposed Big 3
> bailout, you are not going to understand this thread.
>
>

Ha ha. If you don't understand international competitive dynamics and
game theory, you are over your head.

 

"News" <News@Group.name> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "News" <News@Group.name> wrote
>>
>>>Elle wrote:
>>>
>>>>"News" <News@Group.name> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And why would this interest Honda and the others?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The government would pay Honda Et Al. for their interest
>>>>as opposed to paying money to the Big 3.
>>>
>>>I repeat, why would keeping competitors alive interest
>>>Honda et al?
>>
>>
>> No no; I am saying let the competitors die. Just move
>> their workers to Honda et al. and continue making Hondas,
>> Toyotas etc. but not the crappy Fords, GMs, and
>> Chryslers.
>>
>> If you have not been reading about the proposed Big 3
>> bailout, you are not going to understand this thread.
>
> Ha ha. If you don't understand international competitive
> dynamics and game theory, you are over your head.

So you are unaware of the bailout. Wrong thread for you.

 

I read an interesting tongue-in-check proposal to
have Steve Jobs take over GM. When Steve left
Apple for eight years to run NeXT and Pixar,
Apple pretty much became the GM of computers-
almost bankrupt, stoogy old product lines,
excessive model types, etc.
When Steve returned he dumped non-core functions
such as manufacturing, cut product lines by 2/3rds,
and returned style to the lineup.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...07_005508.html

 

Elle wrote:
> Is any other Honda enthusiast struck by the U.S. Congress's
> and President's effort to shore up and nationalize companies
> that make terrible automobiles and have long promoted
> gluttony by consumers? Why not instead compel, one way or
> another, mergers with Honda, Toyota, and Subaru or Nissan
> such that they would agree to start new plants, employ many
> of Detroit's former workers, and fill the gap that the
> demise of Detroit's auto companies would unquestionably
> cause?
>
>
Hi,
Big 3 can make cars superior to Honda and others. If top game caller is
engineering backgroundtype. Book keeper type has had top jobs who
created wrong market/product strategy. Management style has to change
to produce cars people want to buy. They've been producing cars they
want to sell(same old technology with new skins), not the cars people want.

 

Elle wrote:
> "News" <News@Group.name> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>"News" <News@Group.name> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Elle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"News" <News@Group.name> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And why would this interest Honda and the others?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The government would pay Honda Et Al. for their interest
>>>>>as opposed to paying money to the Big 3.
>>>>
>>>>I repeat, why would keeping competitors alive interest
>>>>Honda et al?
>>>
>>>
>>>No no; I am saying let the competitors die. Just move
>>>their workers to Honda et al. and continue making Hondas,
>>>Toyotas etc. but not the crappy Fords, GMs, and
>>>Chryslers.
>>>
>>>If you have not been reading about the proposed Big 3
>>>bailout, you are not going to understand this thread.
>>
>>Ha ha. If you don't understand international competitive
>>dynamics and game theory, you are over your head.
>
>
> So you are unaware of the bailout. Wrong thread for you.
>
>

And you don't know what you don't know. Good luck to you.

 

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> Is any other Honda enthusiast struck by the U.S.
>> Congress's and President's effort to shore up and
>> nationalize companies that make terrible automobiles and
>> have long promoted gluttony by consumers? Why not instead
>> compel, one way or another, mergers with Honda, Toyota,
>> and Subaru or Nissan such that they would agree to start
>> new plants, employ many of Detroit's former workers, and
>> fill the gap that the demise of Detroit's auto companies
>> would unquestionably cause?
>>
>>
> Hi,
> Big 3 can make cars superior to Honda and others. If top
> game caller is engineering backgroundtype. Book keeper
> type has had top jobs who created wrong market/product
> strategy.

Why would an engineer have a better grasp of market and
product strategy compared to a business person? Especially
American engineers who are as interested in muscle cars as
any teenage boy.

> Management style has to change
> to produce cars people want to buy.

Do you really doubt that people's desires did not drive the
demand for SUVs?

> They've been producing cars they want to sell(same old
> technology with new skins), not the cars people want.

Lastly, consider (1) how many years it would take to put out
yet another Big 3 model and that (2) the new model may or
may not be successful to keep the company afloat. (As Rick
suggested, part of the problem is the Big 3 make too many
different models.) Why take our tax dollars and gamble? Is
this as good a decision as compelling Honda, Toyota, etc. to
simply absorb the Big 3's labor force and continue to put
out cars we know are reliable? Friggin' government is not
even talking to Honda or Toyota.

 

"News" <News@Group.name> wrote
Elle wrote
>> So you are unaware of the bailout. Wrong thread for you.
>
> And you don't know what you don't know.

Likewise chief.

 

Elle wrote:
> "News" <News@Group.name> wrote
> Elle wrote
>
>>>So you are unaware of the bailout. Wrong thread for you.
>>
>>And you don't know what you don't know.
>
>
> Likewise chief.
>
>

You got the last part right.