Page 2 of 3   <       >

Perceptions of Detroit Are Miles From Reality

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Reality: That's baloney. But seemingly intelligent politicians such as President-elect Barack Obama have been swallowing it. Even a cursory review of GM's corporate actions over the past decade shows that GM has invested much energy and enormous sums of money into integrating its once-too-far-flung global operations into one global unit; increasing product development, design and manufacturing efficiencies; and greatly improving product quality and innovation. But based on comments from Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to the effect that GM must stop resisting change, one wonders whether either of them has bothered reading Harbour Consulting, J.D. Power, or any other available, objective reports detailing GM's recent progress.

* * *

Perception: GM is opposed to making fuel-efficient vehicles. It is wedded to big trucks.

Reality: GM is no different from Toyota or Nissan -- or Suzuki. It is wedded to making money. Until a few years ago in a United States awash in cheap gasoline, that meant making as many trucks as possible, because light trucks, powered by U.S. consumer demand, were more than 50 percent of new-vehicle sales. Small, fuel-efficient cars barely constituted 4.5 percent of the market.

The problem there involved a U.S. Congress that refused to exercise leadership and tamp down consumer demand for petroleum by raising federal fuel taxes, as much as it did Detroit's alleged resistance to fuel economy.

* * *

Perception: GM was alone in pursuing truck dollars.

Reality: That's more baloney. Nearly all car companies doing business in the United States went after that money. But here's the kicker: An amalgam of Southern states gave hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives to GM's foreign rivals to build nonunion assembly plants in their region. Beneficiaries of those states' "business-friendly" policies included BMW, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota -- all of which used taxpayer dollars to set up nonunion truck plants to go after the truck business dominated by union-represented GM, Ford and Chrysler manufacturing facilities.

They went after the truck money. Toyota launched and re-launched its Tundra pickup. Heck, even Suzuki has cobbled together a full-size Equator pickup.

* * *

Perception: GM does not know how to make small cars.

Reality: GM knows darn well how to make small cars. It's been doing so for decades in Europe, South America and Asia. The problem is, absent high fuel prices, GM has no earthly idea how to get Americans to buy small cars -- at a profit to GM.


<       2        >


© 2008 The Washington Post Company