The Truth About "The Truth About Cars and Trucks"
Holman Jenkins offers his analysis of the Motown meltdown under the TTAC-usurping title “ The Truth About Cars and Trucks.” According to the Wall Street Journal scribe, we should blame the current domestic auto industry implosion on the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) monopoly on Detroit production. Oh, and the manipulation of federal law to protect same. I think. “For three decades, the Big Three were able to survive precisely because they skimped on quality and features in the money-losing sedans they were required under Congress’s fuel economy rules to build in high-cost UAW factories. In return, Washington compensated them with the hothouse, politically protected opportunity to profit from pickups and SUVs. Doesn’t sound much like what you hear incessantly from your Congressman, about how Detroit’s problems are all due to management ‘incompetence’ in deciding to build ‘gas guzzling’ SUVs, does it?” Uh, it kinda does. And I’d like to see a bit more detail on this assertion, please: “Washington’s latest fuel-economy rules actually reward manufacturers for increasing the size and weight of some vehicles.”
But Holman is not without reason, as he condemns the feds for molly-coddling the UAW. Again. Still.
“The Obama strategy does nothing to change the basic dynamics of the homegrown auto sector — a labor monopoly combined with endless finagles in Washington to help the Big Three survive competition from Japanese, German and Korean auto makers. But maybe the shock of seeing GM nationalized will at least cause some in politics and the press finally to think about how we got here.”
I agree! But I would do, as I already said as much (if not so elegantly) in Bailout Watch 509. Anyway, Eddy and I reckon the MSM will have a lot of time to do Holman’s kind of thinking. “Look how long it took British Leyland to unwind,” Eddy reminded me. Jenkins should put that in his editorial pipe and smoke it. Then again, we call dibs on the American Leyland meme.
More by Robert Farago
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Ajla If I was Ford I would just troll Stellantis at all times.
- Ronin It's one thing to stay tried and true to loyal past customers; you'll ensure a stream of revenue from your installed base- maybe every several years or so.It's another to attract net-new customers, who are dazzled by so many other attractive offerings that have more cargo capacity than that high-floored 4-Runner bed, and are not so scrunched in scrunchy front seats.Like with the FJ Cruiser: don't bother to update it, thereby saving money while explaining customers like it that way, all the way into oblivion. Not recognizing some customers like to actually have right rear visibility in their SUVs.
- MaintenanceCosts It's not a Benz or a Jag / it's a 5-0 with a rag /And I don't wanna brag / but I could never be stag
- 3-On-The-Tree Son has a 2016 Mustang GT 5.0 and I have a 2009 C6 Corvette LS3 6spd. And on paper they are pretty close.
- 3-On-The-Tree Same as the Land Cruiser, emissions. I have a 1985 FJ60 Land Cruiser and it’s a beast off-roading.
Comments
Join the conversation
PCH, You wrote, in this thread, "Here’s a challenge to you — show me something in GM’s financial statements that supports that data point, after everything has been netted out." To which I replied, also in this thread, "If you will only take as proof, evidence on the financials, then you aren’t playing fair. The financials are a lousy place to look for the facts on government intervention. They simply won’t show there." Frankly, the amount extra that UAW costs will never be able to be ascertained by looking at the financial statement - NEVER. It's not that granular, and even if it were, it would always be debatable how much of any figure was actually due to government influence. I won't sit here and list all the costs that won't show up on a balance sheet even one that isn't meant to be as misleading as the investors and regulators will allow.