Skip to main content

Calling the Shot - Halfway there

Yesterday I posted about the Wagoner firing being a smokescreen--a bit of PR to throw a scapegoat before an angry mob weary of bailouts.
Here are the options:

Option 1) GM can build more inexpensive fuel-efficient green cars
Option 2) GM can preserve UAW jobs, contracts, and legacy commitments
Option 3) GM can be profitable

Pick two.

The math doesn't work out any other way. It is an impossibility.

Analysis:

Option #1 is pretty much a given under the current administration and Congress. CAFE standards and a near religious-like zealousness amongst the Democratic party base has pretty much settled this issue.

I failed to state that, even though wildly improbable, my preferred method of dealing with this is that we back off the environmental jihad, and let American car companies make cars Americans want and turn a profit. However, GM building more fuel-efficient cars is a federal mandate, because anthropogenic climate change is for all intents and purposes a secular religion, and not to be questioned.

The American auto companies, saddled with higher labor costs and legacy costs compared to overseas competitors, were only staying afloat because of the higher profit margins on vans, full-size trucks, and SUVs--exactly the kinds of things that ever more stringent federal environmental controls make it harder and more costly to produce. In turn, this eats away the profit margins on those vehicles, leaving U.S. auto manufacturers no choice but to cut labor rates to be competitive in the small-car market (sacrificing option #2, above). Caught between a rock (CAFE standards) and a hard place (the UAW), they can sacrifice neither option #1 or #2, both deemed sacred by the current administration and congress.

Alas, GM has to surrender any hope for option #3 (turning a profit).

Michael G. Franc points out that the smokescreen obscured even more than I originally thought. On the same day that Wagoner was fired by the President stepped down from GM, a DOT press release stated:
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced today that the Department of Transportation has posted the new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the 2011 model year…
Yep. Looks like a pretty safe bet that the government won't ease up fuel efficiency standards. The Detroit News goes on to report:
Stricter fuel economy standards… for the 2011 model year will cost struggling auto companies nearly $1.5 billion and boost the cost of passenger vehicles an average of $64 for cars and $126 for light trucks.
Will you recoup those costs in fuel savings over time? See my next post.

#UPDATE#
Ok, see "a future post". Not my "next post". I'm still hammering this one out. -ER

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

COVID-19 and the Tools We Need to Re-open Wisely

There's a lot of graphs and stats that the news is throwing at people right now. So much so, that you can get information overload trying to make sense of the statistics that have meaning. To quote my old Econometrics professor, "There are three types of lies: 'Lies', 'Damned Lies', and 'Statistics' ". I should also lead with the caveat that I'm an engineer and data nerd by trade, but I'm not an epidemiologist. I welcome feedback from those who have more experience than I do. The most important question we're trying to answer (at least here in Michigan), is "How are we doing?", and "When can we reopen our economy?". With respect to those questions, here's my take on the most important data, and some caveats about what these data are telling us. The four most cited data in news stories are: Total Number of Cases Daily New Cases. Total Number of Deaths Daily New Deaths This post will talk about #1 and #2

The Re-Opening Experiment

We should remind ourselves that, this Memorial Day weekend and the weeks that follow, we are subjects in a grand experiment to see how good we are at social distancing as stay-at-home orders are being slowly lifted. The state's stay-at-home order was never meant to keep you, individually, safe from infection. It was meant to keep hospital's safe from being overwhelmed by too many of us needing them at the same time. In Michigan, the daily new cases of COVID-19 are higher today than they were when we locked down in late March. We are testing whether or not we can open up (with all of our new precautions and protocols) without spiking the rate of spread, but make no mistake: it *is* an experiment, and we *are* the test subjects. Please don't get careless as things start to open up. We need to get our economies back on track, but we are still a long way (and a vaccine away) from being out of the woods. Stay vigilant, folks. Wash your hands. Wear a mask. As has always been the

What Advice Would You Give Your Younger Self?

An old friend recently reached out to me (and presumably others) and asked us what advice we'd give our younger selves, particularly at ages 20, 30 and 40. After writing my response to him, I thought it worth posting myself as well.  The substantive bulk of my response to him follows: ----- The difficult thing is that I really wouldn't change a thing about who I am, so any call for advice feels a bit like a time-traveler scenario where my advice to a younger self would affect the outcome of my present life, and I'm not sure I'd risk it. My experiences shaped me, including the glaring mistakes, and I wouldn't trade places today with anyone on Earth. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics here, and thus assume I won't mess my own (present) life up. Wibbly-Wobbly. Timey-Wimey. It is also important to note that the question is "What advice would you give your younger self?". The a