Now that's classy right there!

AsSiMiLaTeD

Some guy at Ford: Hey we should do something that will make us look classy so we can get our name in the news and maybe people will start talking about us again

Some other guy at Ford: Nah that won't work, people aren't that gullable, they'll see right through it

First Guy: Nah, most people are pretty gullable. Besides, if nothing else then the people who are already really into us will use it to convince others that we're a class act.

Second Guy: OK, let's do it

Three weeks later....here we are

steveinaz

Demi is pretty damn smart about this stuff--I don't have the chops to argue with him. You go boy.

Jstas

There is so much wrong in this thread right now it's hurting my brain just thinking about it.

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

Some guy at Ford: Hey we should do something that will make us look classy so we can get our name in the news and maybe people will start talking about us again

Some other guy at Ford: Nah that won't work, people aren't that gullable, they'll see right through it

First Guy: Nah, most people are pretty gullable. Besides, if nothing else then the people who are already really into us will use it to convince others that we're a class act.

Second Guy: OK, let's do it

Three weeks later....here we are

Oh and f*@% you.

[Deleted User]

Ford did a good thing, even though it may be from a marketing point of view. I believe american engineering is superior to imports, but I guess we have to take profit and loss margin into account. Go American!!! Lives ON!!!

brettw22

Maybe when it comes to trucks, but with the exception of the Chrysler 300 (2 years ago) I have yet to feel a solid suspension on an American car that didn't feel clunky or loose......

bobman1235

halenhoang wrote: »

I believe american engineering is superior to imports, but I guess we have to take profit and loss margin into account.

C'mon, I really didn't want to get back into this, but... how can you POSSIBLY say that? I understand being proud of your country and workers, but every drop of real-world evidence disputes this claim. Imports are more efficient, more reliable, and just all-around more well-designed. If you want to buy American to support American jobs, that's awesome, have a blast, but the only thing "American engineering" can do better (With regards to cars) is make a big muscle car, a dubious distinction at best.

And I"m not saying this to bash America, I love this country and its people, I just don't love our cars.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Jstas wrote: »

Oh and f*@% you.

Nice John, very mature. Ya, I'm a cynic when I see this stuff. Anytime I see a gesture of good will displayed for the public eye I question the motive, be it this or a celebrity giving millions of dollars to a charity and wanting to hold a press conference about it...

It's sad that I live in such a state of negativity when it comes to these things, but that's not the point. There's a large distance between having opposing opinions on a matter and then verbally assaulting someone, and yet you seem to have once again traversed that great distance with great ease and carelessness with eloquent words above...

well done...

Systems

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

Nice John, very mature. Ya, I'm a cynic when I see this stuff. Anytime I see a gesture of good will displayed for the public eye I question the motive, be it this or a celebrity giving millions of dollars to a charity and wanting to hold a press conference about it...

It's sad that I live in such a state of negativity when it comes to these things, but that's not the point. There's a large distance between having opposing opinions on a matter and then verbally assaulting someone, and yet you seem to have once again traversed that great distance with great ease and carelessness with eloquent words above...well done.

Yes, I thought there were some rules somewhere about attacking people on here.....

zombie boy 2000

So... I guess the title of this thread now officially defines "irony". Classy, indeed.

AsSiMiLaTeD

I'm not sure if that's actually in the rules or not, it's more just common decency. John's not a bad guy, he's just angry sometimes, you know how those New Jersey people are .

In all fairness, I knew my original post would likely draw criticism, was just a bit surprised at how quickly it turned to a personal attack. At best it's an unpopular opinion, most will receive it as overly cynical. In this case I'll give Ford a pass and accept it as a good case of showmanship, but my general feeling on these stunts still stands - this was a publicity stunt plain and simple, and it worked.

jdwmap

Does everyone realize the government now owns 80% of AIG, not really a, hey, here, take these billions of dollars. It is more of a hey, you screwed up, let me buy you at a fraction of what you are worth. Maybe more companies will try to stay liquid, or at least have more than 3% of your assets liquid.

Jstas

Look tough guy, your post was a direct slam at me. I responded appropriately.

All I did was post something I thought was cool. I had no intention of anything you stated in your post. I just saw something I thought showed some character and thought I'd share. Now this has degraded into another thread about the American automotive industry full of misinformation and petty arguing. It really didn't need this:

Some guy at Ford: Hey we should do something that will make us look classy so we can get our name in the news and maybe people will start talking about us again

Some other guy at Ford: Nah that won't work, people aren't that gullable, they'll see right through it

First Guy: Nah, most people are pretty gullable. Besides, if nothing else then the people who are already really into us will use it to convince others that we're a class act.

Second Guy: OK, let's do it

Three weeks later....here we are

And yeah, I took it personal because that's how it came off. Act like a punk, I'll treat you like a punk.

Jstas

jdwmap wrote: »

Does everyone realize the government now owns 80% of AIG, not really a, hey, here, take these billions of dollars. It is more of a hey, you screwed up, let me buy you at a fraction of what you are worth. Maybe more companies will try to stay liquid, or at least have more than 3% of your assets liquid.

Jesus Christ!

AIG didn't screw up. AIG INSURED banks and borrowers for mortgages and other investments. When the bottom of the market dropped out, even people that were not high risk borrrowers ran in to trouble when the house was worth less than they owed. Of course banks are going to cash in and that means companies like AIG and other insurers bite the big one. AIG is a victim of circumstances and they aren't really in business ending trouble.

The problem with AIG is that they are one of the largest insurers in the world and they have assets all over the world in every market. If AIG gets affected here, it affects the rest of the world too and the dollar gets seriously devalued because the GDP drops like a stone. If that happens, it will affect every other merket AIG has holdings in negativly because every thing they have a share in all of a sudden hits the market and drops stock and shakes confidence in lending institutions. Also, look at the S&P500 and the funds coming out of that. AIG is in every single one of them. Hell, look at your own mutual funds if you have them, I'll take the bet that you are more than likely to have AIG listed as a contributor.

If AIG goes down, everyone around the world loses money. AIG's troubles are the main reason the Dow Jones dropped over 400 points last week and even more this week.

Lehman screwed up and that's why they got sold and not bailed out. AIG didn't screw up. They insured to a risk level that they could handle. When the housing market dropped out, that risk level grew beyond what they could handle. Yeah, insurance is a gamble and they took a risk but they didn't do anything wrong in managing that risk. The risk growth was out of their control. That's why they got bailed out.

kgingras

halenhoang wrote: »

Ford did a good thing, even though it may be from a marketing point of view. I believe american engineering is superior to imports, but I guess we have to take profit and loss margin into account. Go American!!! Lives ON!!!

American auto manufacturers have no idea how bad they are at engineering and manufacturing cars compared to Toyota and Honda.

They have constantly prevaricated and failed to improve in spite of their competition, they were poor performers in 1985 when the Machine that Changed the World was published and documented Toyota's rise to the top.

Its astonishing that between 1947 and 1950 Toyota produced fewer than 3000 cars whilst Ford's Rouge plant in Detroit was producing 7000 / day.

Now Toyota is the most profitable, efficient, innovative and quality driven automotive manufacturer in the world while GM and Ford beg for gov't welfare.

If they produced quality vehicles at similar costs to Toyota they may not be where they are now but failing to change and improve has got them where they are and if they cant see the writing on the wall then they deserve what they get.

brettw22

Jstas wrote: »

AIG didn't screw up. They insured to a risk level that they could handle. When the housing market dropped out, that risk level grew beyond what they could handle. Yeah, insurance is a gamble and they took a risk but they didn't do anything wrong in managing that risk. The risk growth was out of their control. That's why they got bailed out.

I don't know that's necessarily correct, is it? I mean, if they overinsure (without compensating or planning for failure), then they ultimately insured to a risk level they couldn't sustain..........making them ultimately at fault for being wiped out..........it's not like the entire industry isn't built around people calculating their risk/costs for doing business........

AsSiMiLaTeD

Jstas wrote: »

Look tough guy, your post was a direct slam at me. I responded appropriately.

All I did was post something I thought was cool. I had no intention of anything you stated in your post. I just saw something I thought showed some character and thought I'd share. Now this has degraded into another thread about the American automotive industry full of misinformation and petty arguing. It really didn't need this:



And yeah, I took it personal because that's how it came off. Act like a punk, I'll treat you like a punk.

Wow...where to start...

1 - I don't get the tough guy comment, but ok
2 - My post was not directed at you, believe it or not, it's actually not all about you. I can see where you'd think that seeing as how you're the one that created the thread, but it was not directed at you personally, but rather the idea in general. In retrospect I could have worded it better, so I'll take my lumps there, but it's still quite a long way from my post to what you posted.
3 - Again with the name calling...nice

exalted512

brettw22 wrote: »

I don't know that's necessarily correct, is it? I mean, if they overinsure (without compensating or planning for failure), then they ultimately insured to a risk level they couldn't sustain..........making them ultimately at fault for being wiped out..........it's not like the entire industry isn't built around people calculating their risk/costs for doing business........

I'd say yes and no. I'm about to go to the library, but AIG is an insurance company. Every insurance company is taking a risk when they insure anyone. They stay in business, so that means that people are paying more in than they are getting in return. But some people are getting a lot more in return than they are paying in. Health insurance is a great example. You can live almost your entire life without having anything major happen. On the other hand, you have a handful of people that get seriously ill/injured, and they are using their insurance to its limit. The insurance company loses on those people.

Same thing with AIG, win some, you lose some. But, its hard to prepare for something like our economy is going through right now. When you have more people getting more than what they pay in than you do vice versa, the **** starts to hit the fan.

So yes, it might have been prevented, but at the same time, its really hard to say. Someone has to undertake the job they have and if no one else can do it, I'd say our economy would be far worse off if no one was able to because the risks were too high.
-Cody

Btw, i dunno if its google chrome or what but i have to press tab twice now to hit submit

exalted512

Its google chrome, doesnt do it in firefox:rolleyes:
-Cody

kgingras

bobman1235 wrote: »

One of the stated purposes of the gov't is to "promote the general welfare." GM or Ford going out of business would MASSIVELY hurt the economy when tens of thousands lost their jobs, which would cascade and eventually affect you as well when your dollar was worth a quarter after consumer confidence tumbles.

I know smart-asses like you like to think the economy is some simple little equation and you have it all figured out, but it's amazingly fragile and complex.

I have to shake my head at what is happening with this administration. I would never have believed that the Republicans would interfere in the markets the way they have, it is completely against all notion of Conservativism. To provide bail outs to all those companies is something that Democrats might have done to save jobs.

I have no idea where this administration falls other than to say they are governing to be more popular. I have always heard Bush governs but what he thinks is right and ignores polls but that is simply not true.

They are going to trap themselves with this corporate welfare program and will be forced to say no to companies looking for handouts. The auto companies, airlines, other large insurance companies etc., etc are going to be waiting in line and then the political fallout will build. It is a slippery slope and I can't believe a Republican administration is falling for it.

Jstas

brettw22 wrote: »

I don't know that's necessarily correct, is it? I mean, if they overinsure (without compensating or planning for failure), then they ultimately insured to a risk level they couldn't sustain..........making them ultimately at fault for being wiped out..........it's not like the entire industry isn't built around people calculating their risk/costs for doing business........

Cody already made most of the points I was going to make.

AIG itself is not necessarily in trouble. The insurance companies they rrun are fine. It's the holdings company behind them that was running in to problems. The biggest issue there was that the financial resources that were backing all those polices were being drained by the U.S. housing problem. The issue there is that the more money the U.S. arm sucks away from everywhere else to cover the losses in the short term, the bigger the long term impact across teh globe becomes.

AIG was trying to prevent the problem of too much risk, not enough funding in other countries but it couldn't keep up with the rapid defaulting of loans here in the U.S. You can't funnel other monies from other markets to prop up one market doing badly unless you replace it. The problem is that the economy has stuff bad around the globe and AIG was hemmoraging money in the U.S. and trying to back it up with other funds from elsewhere. But the other markets can't support that draw. So they start sliding in the red too while trying to keep the U.S. market from sliding farther into red. It was honestly the Bear Sterns stuff a few months ago that started them down the path. With the past few lending institutions going under, AIG was stuck holding a bag for insurance they were responsible for but no more income due to the clients they had declaring bankruptcy.

Not a situation anyone wants to be in. And honestly, while a bunch of people saw this coming, it is so hard to plan for this kind of risk when you have no idea how far it was going to go.

Could AIG have done differently? Yeah, maybe but how paranoid do you have to be? AIG would have had to start planning for this 10 years ago and that would have killed their business then too.

It was said in another thread. You cannot build, you cannot sell, you cannot buy, you cannot finance, you can not even forclose on a mortgage without insurance in this country anymore. Somebody has to insure all of that and small potatoes companies do not have the financial resources to handle that nor do they want the risk. It takes giants like Bank of America, AIG, Wells Fargo, American Express (believe it or not, they have many, many arms of finance institutions under other names) to be able to fork over the cash.




Also, I keep seeing people commenting about taxes. The bailout money comes out of the Federal Reserve, not the Federal Budget. Your taxes are likely not to increase because of it. They will increase for other reasons. The money for the bailout comes out of the Reserve and it only gets replenished by tax dollars in an emergency situation like, say WWII was an emergency situation. Otherwise, the bailed out companies are responsible for the bailout. They are loans. Low interest loans but loans nonetheless. Chrysler paid back their bailouts as well as several other companies including Ford and GM. Besides, it looks like Ford and GM are going to get a bailout themselves. But it's not for saving the companies. 25 billion between the two of them is no where near enough and less than 1/8th the total value of them together. They need the extra money to put plans in place for hybrid vehicles. They had a plan, both of them, but the gas cost problem killed the funding by killing the truck market and the cash cows. They hemmorage money trying to stay afloat, they can't fund the projects that get them competing with the imports. That is what the bailout is intended for. To help them adjust faster because the cash flow is gone.



And since we are now stuck on the topics, bobman, where is all this "evidence" you claim that imports are so much better than domestic brands? Honestly, everything I've been seeing lately shows that the venerable Honda and Toyota have lost a ton of ground to GM and Ford and in more than a few cases, have been completely surpassed.

BAD ASP

I've read all with great interest and there certainly is some incredible insight but if I could cast my vote.......

I agree it appears to be a class act on the part of Ford!

bobman1235

Jstas wrote:

And since we are now stuck on the topics, bobman, where is all this "evidence" you claim that imports are so much better than domestic brands? Honestly, everything I've been seeing lately shows that the venerable Honda and Toyota have lost a ton of ground to GM and Ford and in more than a few cases, have been completely surpassed.

What's the point in even trying to convince you? You all let your patriotism cloud your judgment on the issue so it's pointless to try to have a rational debate about it. I could point to the consumer reports reliability ratings :

Only three domestic models made the Most reliable list: the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, and the two-wheel-drive Ford F-150 with the V6 engine. U.S. makes, however, account for almost half the models—25 of 44—on the Least reliable list. There are 13 from GM, 6 from Chrysler, and 1 from Ford.

And let me guess, Consumer Reports is a joke and shouldn't be trusted.

Or Edmunds, who list the top 10 most fuel efficient cars and not one of them is American. Fuel efficiency isn't your bag, that's fine, I don't care, but it's important to a lot of people, and it shows a large amount of engineering work that American automakers refuse to do.

It'll go back and forth, you'll write a 7000 word essay on why I'm an ****, and I'll give up. So let's just say it's my opinion. My dad works in restoring and fixing cars, mostly interiors, so I get a chance to sit in and get a feel for a lot of different cars, even if it is just for a short time. For the most part, imports just FEEL better. They're designed smarter. It's a generalization, there's vast amounts of exceptions on both sides, but for the most part, it's the case. If a Euro or Japanese car company makes a sports car, they tune and tweak an engine and suspension to get the most out of it, and it becomes a truly well-engineered machine. Ford or Chevy wants a sports car, they just make a really big engine. Sure it's a great engine, but it just doesn't show the finesse and engineering skill that it takes to really tune an engine for all it's worth.

Watch a show like Top Gear, one of the most popular shows in the world, and see how many American cars they feature. Once in a while a Focus or something, but that's about it. They have a decided anti-American slant, being British, but a show like that still highlights what other countries have been able to do with cars and you just don't see much of that over here.

I'm a patriotic, pro-America guy but I'm not going to just pound my chest and insist everything we do is the best just because I live here, cuz it ain't true.

kgingras

Jstas wrote: »

And since we are now stuck on the topics, bobman, where is all this "evidence" you claim that imports are so much better than domestic brands? Honestly, everything I've been seeing lately shows that the venerable Honda and Toyota have lost a ton of ground to GM and Ford and in more than a few cases, have been completely surpassed.

Consumer reports would be a good place to start although there are many others. A recent snippet…”Honda, with an overall score of 78, is followed closely by Toyota (75) and Subaru (72). BMW, Mazda, Nissan, and Volkswagen are tied at 71, after rounding.” Last time I checked Japanese manufacturers were the top in every single category with the exception of the pickup truck which was represented by Chevy.

I wonder if the unions are happy that they managed to break the man?

ben62670

American cars have their crappy cars that kill their rep. There are plenty of good American cars out there. You just need to pay attention to what you get. I'll stick with American. I am loving my 96 Pontiac Grad Prix SE with 165k on it. Great mileage, and power. Doesn't have that tin can import feel.

Jstas

Everybody always lists Consumer Reports. Why? People tell you that they are bogus because the have a reputation for twisting the facts, fixing test results and being corporate shills.

Honestly Edmunds isn't much better.

But whatever. For the results to really mean anything, the survey criteria is important but since I'm just "letting my patriotism cloud my judgement" I won't even bother anymore.

For the record, I think your judgement is also clouded in this matter.

bobman1235

So who can we trust? Post some links with counter information.

When all of the big name survey companies agree that imports are more reliable, and the consensus among normal people is that imports are more reliable, and the sales of American cars are in the tank compared to very profitable imports.... how exactly can you corroborate your opinion? Aside from "I own a Ford truck and love it", which is great but irrelevant. I've owned American cars and loved them too, we're talking about the general trend not specific models and experiences.

brettw22

I've driven hundreds of rental cars and I can say while the LOOK of some of the American cars is improving, the mechanics are not. I'm currently driving a Saturn Auro which I actually like the look of, but if I go over a speed bump or asphalt damage, the suspension feels loose and sloppy. On FEEL alone, I'd avoid pretty much every American car I've been in.

I had a brand new (under 500 miles) Dodge Avenger and I drove that thing for 8 miles and returned it to the rental agency because while driving down the freeway, the thing felt like it was gonna go sideways while transitioning from road to bridge to road.....THe look of the car is nice..........the function of it was frightening.....

Even the most basic Hundai or Kia's feel better mechanically..........granted, in some of the lines they do have that tin can feel/sound when shutting the door, but the car drove well and the suspension didn't sound like it was about to come up through the hood.

ben62670

Dodge hasn't made but a few good products since the early 70's (I see flaming arrows coming my way. Gotta go):eek::p:D

AsSiMiLaTeD

It's not always so bad that the engineering in American cars is simpler, makes them easier to work on. My friend has a 2004 Silverado, and all he has to do to get his radio out is snap the dash off, takes like 10 seconds.

You should see what I have to do in my 4Runner, basically have to dis-assemble the console and dash, takes more like 30 minutes, with me already knowing what I'm doing....

bobman1235

I definitely agree with that one. Maintenance as cars get more "engineered" and complicated has become a nightmare. Which is why reliability has to go hand in hand with everything else - you can have a car that rides great but breaks often and is a nightmare to fix (*cough*VW*cough*), and most people would rather have a car that doesn't ride or perform as well but never breaks. A lot of the Japanese manufacturers have really hit a sweet spot with performance and reliability that makes them so appealing (and popular).