Print Story As I sit back and listen
Diary
By nightflameblue (Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:09:19 AM EST) (all tags)
the phrase "he flew his company's private jet" become the new "he gassed his own people," I keep wondering if anyone has even the slightest clue.


The American Auto Industry has done everything it can to flush itself down the toilet over the last ten years or so. Refusing to make the vehicles people want, and when push comes to shove trying to make bigger, faster, sportier cars as people attempt to move to smaller, lighter, more efficient cars to save money on fuel. Having hugely overpaid executives, which is sort of a standard in any industry that's ever seen mild success, but keeping them when the success began to sour. Spending bad money after good on building more and more plants to make automobiles more and more people don't want. Contracting in executive pleasure travel as part of the company bonus package.

I could point out several more negative points, but the reality is that the American Auto Industry didn't JUST NOW start to behave badly. Showing up to their begging hearings on private jets, while stupid, is just a symptom. The executives themselves are the disease.

But if the private jet debacle gives people a talking point, a way to express their frustration with corporate America sticking it to them, so be it. At least people are FINALLY beginning to be upset with the corporate masters.

It won't last, but I giggled maniacly this morning as talking head after talking head came on the TV to decry the horrible auto-execs for being so greedy. Now that the newstertainment gang are on the trail, people might actually start paying attention.

And that can't be a bad thing.

< A Day in the Life | So what DO you do?! >
As I sit back and listen | 71 comments (71 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
It was probably for the best by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #1 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:14:58 AM EST
as we don't need a plane load of ordinary citizens being sent to Gitmo for tarring and feathering the execs if they were on commercial transportation.


Not to sound too Roman by MartiniPhilosopher (4.00 / 3) #2 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:21:30 AM EST
but I think I would pay good money to watch that circus.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
HEY! by nightflameblue (4.00 / 1) #5 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:27:20 AM EST
I think I just figured out how the auto-industry can save itself!

[ Parent ]
Live by the free market, die by the free market by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 5) #3 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:24:24 AM EST
Fuck the auto industry.


Really, they're just jealous. by nightflameblue (4.00 / 2) #4 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:26:39 AM EST
Because Wall Street figured out how to get the big handouts first.

[ Parent ]
whoa whoa whoa by sasquatchan (4.00 / 1) #6 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:28:09 AM EST
Refusing to make the vehicles people want

Lots of American made cars were flying off the deals showroom floors for quite some time. People bought monster SUV/trucks, they were happy. Dealers made easy money, they were happy. Automakers made lots of money, they were happy. Until $4/gal gas came.

ITYM they put all their eggs in one basket, and the basket fell.

agreed! by clock (2.00 / 0) #7 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 04:39:34 AM EST
the mom down the street that drives her kids to the pool LESS THAN A BLOCK AWAY in her hummer is a BIG part of this problem.

hell, in TX you HAVE to have a truck even if you never get dirty.  i put a lot of blame on the auto buying public.


I agree with clock entirely --Kellnerin

[ Parent ]
Partially true... by atreides (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:00:27 AM EST
I think Texas is a special case. In any rural area, you have to have a truck for many reasons. In urban areas, any vehicle will usually do. In Texas specifically, with it's identity being so tied to the "rural" nature of so much of the state and the cowboy image of having your own horse, if you don't have a truck and your car isn't a luxury vehicle (BMW, Benz, Porsche, etc.) you might as well be a second class citizen. Add in the oil interests in this state and it's almost treason to not have a car that can carry you and 15 of your closest friends...

If you haven't seen Hands On A Hardbody, see it. It covers a bit of what I'm talking about in the first 30 minutes. And it was made in Welsh Girl's hometown...

He sails from world to world in a flying tomb, serving gods who eat hope.

[ Parent ]
i think that story... by clock (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:26:40 AM EST
...was told in part on this american life or some other podcast that i listen to regularly...fascinating stuff!


I agree with clock entirely --Kellnerin

[ Parent ]
Listen up, youngster by ReallyEvilCanine (4.00 / 3) #8 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:00:03 AM EST
Some of us are old enough to remember what happened in 1973 and 1978. After the first oil crisis poeple stopped laughing at those ugly fucking Honda CVCC Mk 1 boxy POS sardine cans because they got double the mileage of anything out of Detroit. And Detroit kept making huge guzzlers and the price and supply of oil stabilised until 1978, at which point AMC sold itself, Chrysler went begging but with a CEO who actually gave a shit about his company and took a deal from which the US profited, and GM & Ford finally got their asses in gear and made some cars that didn't need a refill every three hours.

The CEOs don't give a shit about their companies now beyond what they and their upper management buddies can squeeze out of them into their own bank accounts. They need to be replaced as a condition of any bail-out and terms similar to those which Chrysler took in 1978/79 must be accepted. There are too many people and businesses dependent on the auto industry; a wholesale failure would be even more devastating than just handing those cockmonkeys $25B unconditionally.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

[ Parent ]
You don't know who you're talking to by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #10 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:09:52 AM EST
last I knew, he had a big mid 70's American made woody that probably gets 15 mpg.


[ Parent ]
1989, TYVM by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #13 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:13:44 AM EST
and it gets 20 mpg, but it's been sitting in the garage while I drive the 1995 corolla that gets ~38 mpg.
my car

[ Parent ]
GM? by ReallyEvilCanine (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 06:59:32 AM EST
Looks similar to the 1973 Custom Cruiser (455 4-barrel w/ Holly carb) that my parents had and which became my car once I had my license with the hope that the poor mileage would keep me from driving hundreds of miles at all hours each week. 10mpg. That looks like the Chevy version with a smaller engine and shittier seats than the Oldsmobile.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

[ Parent ]
I miss having four headlights by georgeha (4.00 / 3) #16 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:02:34 AM EST

That's a 78 Mercury.


[ Parent ]
Ob Whoa! Is that ms ha? by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #31 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:58:46 PM EST
And if not, can I have her number?

[ Parent ]
Yes, about 18 years ago by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Dude! Gams like that are impervious to time. by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #69 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 06:21:04 AM EST
Unlike one's ability to do simple math. But what am I saying? You should know that as well as I do. The shoes appear to be smokin' too...

[ Parent ]
Ford, crown vic LTD by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:31:52 AM EST
"country squire", 5.0L  V8,  with that new fangled fuel injection, even..

[ Parent ]
Unsure if I'm arguing against any of those points by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #11 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:12:36 AM EST
I didn't want to step into the problem of how many millions of people would lose their jobs, how many billions $ more in pension obligations the PBGC would have to pick up (on tax payer dime) if they go outta business, etc.

I only disagreed with NFB that they built cars the American people didn't want. That's demonstrably false.

Also worth noting that Toyota and Honda are having bad years too (sales down 20-30%). So it's all cars that aren't selling well.

[ Parent ]
This "crises" didn't hit today. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #23 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:24:02 AM EST
People have been asking for better efficiency for quite some time. GM's answer? To make the Cadillac Escalade available as a Hybrid, now offering 20 MPG instead of the standard V8s 12.

Somehow, even though most people are morons, I doubt that's what they meant.



[ Parent ]
Have they? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #27 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:56:42 AM EST
Then who the hell was buying all those hummers?


Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
I find it telling. . . by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #29 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:15:14 AM EST
that Honda is opening a new US plant while GM, Ford and Chrysler have closed some down and are considering more closings.

[ Parent ]
That would be because by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #35 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:16:16 PM EST
SUV sales fell off a cliff in the past 6 months - when the gas prices spiked.

See, nobody's arguing that the American car companies don't have structural problems, it's just that they were able to successfully deal with them by selling huge SUVs and trucks at large markups, because the Japanese didn't compete in the truck and SUV market. I mean, yeah, the japanese sell trucks, but they're just re-selling American brands - my Mazda pickup is actually a Ford, for example.

Speaking of which, the American car company that's best off right now also happens to have invested a big chunk of those profits in buying stock in Japanese car companies. Ford owns 33% of Mazda.





Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
Gas prices spiking by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #36 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:29:13 PM EST
Yes, and no one could have predicted that!

The Japanese are eating Detroit's lunch because they think long term.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
The point you're missing by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #41 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:22:02 PM EST
is that NFB is claiming that Detroit has spent years making cars that no one wanted.

Instead of blaming Detroit for making gas guzzlers, perhaps you and he should be pointing your fingers at the people who bought them by the millions.



Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
Well, no by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #42 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:24:57 PM EST
For GM, Ford and Chrysler's travails, I blame mostly blame their management for stupid decisions, like completely abandoning small cars.  (Though to a lesser extent I blame the unions.)

In a free market, one does not blame the customer.  One blames the people in charge of the companies.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
And, again, by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:31:30 PM EST
given that they had two kinds of vehicles, one that sold well and made them a lot of money and one that did neither, how is it their fault that they abandoned the latter?

'Cause I'm sitting here, listening to people tell me how this is all the automakers' fault, but I'm remembering sitting at an intersection the other day and realizing my truck - not my "sub compact" - my truck was completely surrounded by SUVs that dwarfed it and made it impossible for me to see the road ahead, behind or to either side.

I don't remember hearing how GM was forcing people to buy those SUVs.



Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
Clearly by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #46 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:10:25 PM EST
Well given that abandoning the latter has led them to a situation where they were facing bankruptcy, I would say that it was, in the long term, a "mistake".  Given that other auto manufacturers, who made very different businesses decisions, for example, to make smaller cars and hybrids along with their SUVs, are currently completely solvent, and need no government funds, I'd say that the "fault" here is pretty fucking obvious.  They chose to abandon the latter, and now they are paying.  Stupid decision leads to market failure leads to bankruptcy.  That's economics 101.  Why you somehow think that is the consumer's fault is beyond me.

GM didn't force anyone to do anything.  They made stupid business positions and now seem to think that the tax payers should bail themselves out because they were too stupid to realize that the short term gain of SUV sales would be outweighed by the long term failure brought about by their abandonment of smaller cars.

In any case: in a free market, bankruptcy is a failure of the bankrupt.  Do you not believe in the free market?

You seem to somehow think it is the consumer's fault for changing behavior.  That's bullshit.  It is the fault of the auto manufacturer for not keeping up with market trends.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
*Are* the other car companies completely solvent? by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #55 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:27:03 AM EST
Yes by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #60 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:13:08 AM EST
Note that none of those companies are worrying about bankruptcy.

The root cause of GMs troubles:

GM sales down 40% over last year.
Toyota sales down 15% over last year.

This after two decades of slow losses in market share.

If you believe in the free market, then GMs failures are due to GM management making stupid decisions.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
No argument. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #61 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:37:38 AM EST
You're absolutely right - I'm getting torqued up for no good reason; my only point was that NFB was wrong to say that no one was buying American cars; they were - but now the big 3 are faced with a market that changed over a year or 18 months when it takes them at least 5 to design a new model and retool their factories.



Dear User: Please replace this text with a witty or insightful saying before using this software.
[ Parent ]
The fact that the foreign companies by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #62 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:38:34 AM EST
making smaller cars, have thrived in America during this same period that, supposedly, American's only wanted to buy SUVs is something that we're just going to ignore? Yeah, there are a lot of SUVs on the road, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a completely untapped market right under the nose of the big American companies. A market they claimed a share of simply by buying stock in foreign makers that tapped those markets. Shares they are now selling to try and save themselves I might add.

[ Parent ]
And now you're back to profit margins by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #67 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:47:49 AM EST
As I said before, the Americans focused on the products they could charge more money for.  They simply can't compete on high-quality, cheap, small cars because their sunk costs (union contracts, health care, pensions)  make it impossible. So, their only options are to either charge more for a car of the same quality - and not sell any - or make really crappy cars and hope no one notices.

You might want to note that few Japanese plants are unionized, even the ones in the US.



Dear User: Please replace this text with a witty or insightful saying before using this software.
[ Parent ]
My understanding by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #50 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:08:54 AM EST
is that not only did GMFordCerebus not only put all their eggs in one basket, they built factories such that they can only build one type of truck* at a time.  Most of the Japanese (and German, and Korean) factories (at least in the US) can build more than one type.  It's been a long time since I went to the SC BMW plant, but they built both SUVs and roadsters, and are presumably switching to more roadster production now.

Detroit just closes plants.

Wumpus

* you didn't think Detroit built cars did you?


[ Parent ]
Factory types by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #51 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:05:38 AM EST
indeed they did built factories that could only build one type at a time. Which brings us full circle back to restrictive union contracts - it's hard to modernize your factories when job decsriptions are codified in 5 year contracts.


Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
In any case, I'm not arguing that the car makers by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #52 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:06:20 AM EST
did no wrong - I'm only arguing with NFB's claim that they made cars that "no one wanted".


Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
It never ceases to amaze me. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #63 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:41:33 AM EST
I can repeat something that's been stated here hundreds of times with no one even noticing, and suddenly I'm an idiot.

And for the record, it was "people don't want" not "no one wanted." That seems to be a fine line that no one picked up on in this conversation.



[ Parent ]
That's not entirely true by lm (2.00 / 0) #45 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:58:53 PM EST
Toyota and Nissan both make their own trucks.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
And they sell very few of them. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #53 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:09:25 AM EST
I don't think Nissan has anything bigger than a Ford Ranger. You're right that Toyota has been competing in the SUV market with, what's it called, the 4Runner? But it's not nearly as popular as the Explorer or the GM models.


Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what you mean by `not very many' by lm (2.00 / 0) #56 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:18:45 AM EST
First, Nissan's Titan, with the largest trim model coming with a crew cab and an 8 ft bed, is plenty large.

Toyota sells about 20k Tacomas per month. That is certainly in line with Ranger sales. They sell about 10k Tundras per month. While, admittedly, that's only a quarter of F series sales, I think it hardly counts as `not very many.'


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I didn't know about the Titan. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #58 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:46:37 AM EST
I don't think I've ever seen a Nissan truck, but according to this blog, there's a reason I haven't - it was cancelled. As for the Tundra - certainly Toyota considers it's sales "disappointing".

Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
That's a 2007 article you've linked to by lm (2.00 / 0) #68 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:53:45 AM EST
But even so, disappointing isn't the same as ``not very many.'' Selling 120k per year instead of the goal of 200k per year is disappointing. What it isn't is `not very many.' The Tundra has about a quarter of the sales of the undisputed market leader (Ford's F Series). That is no small number of trucks.

I missed the cancellation of the Titan. That just happened this year. They are, however, still on the lots. I don't know where you live but in Ohio and the DC area I've seen them being driven around.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
BTW - did you notice by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #59 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:49:11 AM EST
Nissan, Isuzu, Mazda and Honda have all announced production cuts and (small) layoffs?


Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
Hmmm by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 1) #9 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:08:40 AM EST
GM, Ford, and Chrysler were all doing poorly prior to the jump in gas prices.  The gas surge made things a lot worse, a lot quicker, but it is not the root cause of the problem.


[ Parent ]
They were? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:16:20 AM EST
and here I thought even the Japanese were rolling out SUV models because they're so profitable?


Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
I didn't say a thing about SUVs by Phil the Canuck (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 08:52:51 AM EST
The disease is rooted a lot deeper than that.


[ Parent ]
would you say by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:04:04 AM EST
if they had continued selling SUVs, that the problems would have surfaced eventually anyway ?

I'm sympathetic to "they made bad contracts with the unions that were untenable and fiscally impossible to maintain in the long run" line of reasoning, which means no matter what they made and sold, they would fall apart. Given that non-union plants in the US are/were thriving (since the slowdown has hurt everyone), should give UAW a pause.

(Was glad to see Dingell lost to Waxman. And dems said no to a bailout, this time.)

[ Parent ]
Oh. So you're saying they were in trouble by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:52:37 AM EST
except for all the money they were making selling SUVs.


Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
I'm just saying by Phil the Canuck (2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:47:46 PM EST
They were in trouble before the gas price troubles. 

[ Parent ]
Plan B by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:29:59 PM EST
The Japanese were smart enough not to put all their eggs in that basket.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
It's easy for me to say. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:44:05 AM EST
I've never wanted a big truck. The problem is that people that didn't want a big truck were pretty much ignored. Unless they wanted a super powerful monster guzzling sportscar.

[ Parent ]
Though it's hard to come by the exact numbers by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:56:13 AM EST
the taurus was the top selling car through the 90s. Unsure when camry displaced it. Still hard to hold your assertion that they made cars folks won't buy.

Me ? I prefer more reliable foreign cars (that are some 90% made domestically) , but still own a ford (see below) that's almost 20 years old, and has ~215k miles on it.

[ Parent ]
The best part of the automaker 'crises' by miker2 (4.00 / 3) #12 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:13:14 AM EST
will be seeing the UAW take a big 'ol bite of the shit sandwich.  Those fuckers have been extorting the automakers for decades and now their greed has dried up the sole tit they feed on.  Fuck 'em.


Ah, sociopathy. How warm, how comforting, thy sweet embrace. - MNS
wait by dev trash (4.00 / 2) #39 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:52:56 PM EST
You mean after retirement I shouldn't expect to make more than I did when i worked and get all my health care paid for, and and and, BUT it's not fair!

--
Click
[ Parent ]
I hesitate to call it schadenfreude by webwench (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:17:54 AM EST
I am not someone who revels in the misery of others, although I make exceptions for those who remain unrepentant and refuse to change, thereby manufacturing their own dooms.

"Showing up to their begging hearings on private jets" -- hahahahahahaha DOOM.

Getting more attention than you since 1998. Ya ya!

Reminds me of this story. by wilsley (2.00 / 0) #28 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/day-after-staff-kill-ceo-labour-minister-tells-india-inc-you-have-been-warned/365204/

Some people aren't wasting time going after CEOs.


I'm with you on this one, oh my brother. by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #30 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
And I'd like to continue to promote my economic stimulus package: Give every American citizen a one million dollar bail out check. That's peanuts financially -- a mere 500 million dollars -- and could even be paid for out of the forfeited bonuses (not salaries -- we wouldn't want to leave them destitute) of executives of failed companies. Far cheaper that what's being discussed in the capitol now, and it would have far more impact on the economy far faster that anything else I've hear about yet.

Holy shit. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #32 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:00:30 PM EST
I never actually looked at the numbers that way before, but that's quite the perspective isn't it? One million dollars for every citizen and they wouldn't have tossed as many bucks on the pile as what they're handing to their buddies. That's amazing when you think about it.

I'd guarantee you I'd be stimulating some economy if I got a million bucks. Especially if it was a million tax free.



[ Parent ]
Maths fail by Herring (2.00 / 0) #47 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:16:22 AM EST
300,000,000 x 1,000,000 = 300,000,000,000,000

Which is more than 700,000,000.


christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky

[ Parent ]
Poo. by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #57 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:30:28 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Just wait. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #64 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:43:25 AM EST
They aren't done throwing money at the rich to fix this problem yet.

[ Parent ]
One of my ideas was by Herring (2.00 / 0) #65 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:55:22 AM EST
rather than giving money to the banks, to pay a flat rate (say £10K) off everyone's mortgage. It makes the banks more secure, allows people to keep their house, everyone's happy (except people without a mortgage and the banks).

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
That's not bad. by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #66 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 05:29:36 AM EST
I think there are a lot of ways that bailout package could have been put to good use that didn't induce immediate bank exec bonus strategies, but the problem with that is it wouldn't make the congress critter's buddies very happy to see that kind of money trickle down to the peons before they got their cut.

This situation seems to have reinvigorated my cynicism in government.



[ Parent ]
s/500 m/500 tr/ by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #33 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:08:35 PM EST
you dropped some zeroes


[ Parent ]
I do like that Dodge Challenger SRT-8 by dmg (2.00 / 0) #34 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 01:12:01 PM EST
And the latest Corvette. Would have been in the market for one, alongside many other Brits, but NO FUCKING RIGHT HAND DRIVE????? 
Makes me wonder how committed to selling cars they actually are?
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
You know... by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:39:03 PM EST
given how often I hear the "everyone uses metric except you stupid Americans" speech and the "Americans don't comply with global standards" speech, I find this complaint vastly amusing.


Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
There is a slight difference by Vulch (4.00 / 1) #48 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:16:33 AM EST
Three countries of the world still stick to non-metric, 75 countries with more than a third of the worlds population drive on the left.

[ Parent ]
Disparage Bhutan at your peril. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #71 Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:44:23 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Well by dmg (2.00 / 0) #49 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:56:08 AM EST
I have plenty of high quality alternatives from BMW, Audi etc. You're the ones attempting to sell me a car!! 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
I am?!? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #54 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:14:52 AM EST
Pfft. You could all drive Vauxhalls for all I care.

I think we have a different perception of the scale involved here - how many SRT8's do you think they're going to make, total? I'd be surprised if they made more than a few thousand of them - thus my statement that it would be too expensive or difficult to set up an assembly line just to make a few hundred right hand drive versions.




Is Mike keeping up with his riding?
[ Parent ]
Other manufacturers manage it. by dmg (2.00 / 0) #70 Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:30:55 PM EST
Its not rocket science. 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
As I sit back and listen | 71 comments (71 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback