Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulu
I wonder why GM did not sell more vehicles? Was it mainly a supply problem, i.e. they did not and could not produce enough cars to sell; or was it mainly a demand problem, i.e. relatively few people wanted to buy GM vehicles; or was it some combination of the two?
If it was mainly a demand problem -- more people preferred other manufacturers' cars than GM's cars -- could it be argued by some in the Obama administration that they should not have saved GM as they did? Would they argue that they should have offered the Cars for Clunkers program earlier -- before deciding to buy GM -- and let the public decide which automakers they supported? And if the buying public tended to support other manufacturers, such as Toyota, Honda, Ford and others (ones that did not ask for help from the American and Canadian governments), would the decision have been made to let GM die instead of saving it?
If it was mainly a supply problem, will this be a signal to GM management that perhaps they do not have enough of the type of vehicles that Americans want to buy?
I know these are very difficult questions to answer, especially now that both programs are over (i.e. the Canadian and American governments have bought control of GM and the Cars for Clunkers program ends before the end of August). They are really rhetorical questions, but the question was begging to be asked.
|
People don't want to support Government Motors, Ford did fine, GM, Chrysler not so much. They don't think they will be around long term, and or don't like the idea of government tax dollars going to a for profit company in such a manner.
