Hadn't thought of that. That's probably true, actually. Though I believe even Ford is now offering roadside assist on all its vehicles during the initial warranty period.

I think it's fair to say that the Shelby is at least 50% an emotional purchase. I know it will be for me. Because when I look at some of the vehicles out there, I am very impressed, and choices are getting harder. Lexus' forthcoming IS350 and Infiniti's new M45 look to be terrific cars - superior to Mercedes in almost every respect. I think BMW is well ahead of Merc now too.

Having said that, I sat in a new 3-Series BMW at the autoshow and was totally underwhelmed by both the styling and quality of the new interior.

Things can and do change. While the current Bimmers get uglier (IMHO), Ford, GM and Chrysler have some cool new products out, but they still have a ways to go in terms of overall fit and finish. They definitely lag behind the top Japanese makes.

They must work very, very hard if they wish to remain in the automobile manufacturing business - and certainly they're trying, though it may not happen in time to prevent bankruptcy. If they're not careful, Ford and GM could face a government bailout, or worse yet, extinction. It would be sad, indeed, if America lost its last, major consumer manufacturing industry.

 

Robert, I agree with everything in that last post of yours.

One thing -- Americans still make great cars -- they just make them for foreign companies. Mercedes, BMW, DCX, Toyota, Honda, etc., all have plants here, and they all make good cars here. (And as you said Ford is doing a bit better).

In truth, the problems in American autos are complex. A lot are around unions/pensions/anti-business legislation (liberal's laws), which made us much less competitive and much harder to adapt. Ford has to pay its employees whether they are making cars, or sitting a home watching Oprah and eating Bon-Bon's -- so they had too much capacity, or in the wrong areas, etc., they can't adapt volume and have huge overheads. (and they can't fire the incompetents). So they react by buying Hertz to buy excess capacity, which then slaughters their residual values. Americans figure because they drop so much, that they must be cheap. American legislators say that American companies have to announce all recalls (loud and proud), while Japanese were allowed to do more secret recalls. American laws made it harder to American companies to collaborate -- while foreign companies didn't have the same anti-trust laws. And so on.

I'd say about 25% is American Unions, 25% was American Legislation/Environment (Liberal attitude codified), about 25% was American Management (fat and lazy), and about 25% was situational (their factories were newer because we helped build them/teach them, the Japanese made small/cheap cars that no wanted until the gas crisis of the 70's, and they got lucky, etc., etc.).... My $.02....

 

There's no doubt, the Big Three need a new, competitive business model if they're to survive in the long term. The UAW stipulations certainly don't help matters either.

But that still doesn't explain why an Acura TL can be built in Ohio with materials sourced in the US, and yet the interior plastics quality is still significantly better looking and assembled than most domestic brands. Never quite understood that one.

As to the "liberal weenies" remarks, yeah, both parties have their respective problems and both have contributed to America's manufacturing woes. What astounds me is that the current administration is quite happy to reward the outsourcing of American labor and technology on the part of corporate America, while the country sinks ever deeper into the quagmire of a $361 billion trade deficit. It's an interesting take on supply side economics. :scratch:

 

Don't believe everything you read on moreon.org (moveon), or buy the bleating of the Michael Moore herd.

The truth is that Bush has done NOTHING to change the laws that were passed under Clinton or before that "rewards" the outsourcing of American jobs. That was campaign misinformation planted by the left (read factcheck.org -- annenberg is great). Unless you have specifics I'm unaware of -- but my mother in law is somewhat I lobbyist so I'm a little up on this. Bush isn't "rewarding" that -- he's just done little to change systems put in place long before he got in. Some of them were put in place by Clinton (like NAFTA). (The Liberal misinformation engine is quite effective at finger pointing on twisting blame).

The other side, is the solution is not protectionism or micromanagement (liberal solutions), it is to allow our companies to be more competitive. That usually means things like more legal immigration (block illegal immigration), tort reform, less pro-labor-monoply (union) collusion, simplifying the tax code, lowering taxes, fixing healthcare and retirement (social security), and so on. The Democrats are far far far more often on the wrong side of the issues, both historically, and presently. The Republicans stink too (and are wrong on a few issues); just SLIGHTLY less than the Democrats.

As for the trade-deficit, it is something to keep an eye on. But typically these things swing back and forth. The way to reduce it, is to help our companies compete, to stop catering to labor, and so on. But the reasons we can't compete is partly situational, but also strongly because of our own laws/regulations/etc.. And if you trace those to the source, the Republicans have contributed to the problems -- but the Democrats have far far far far far FAR FAR FAR more.

 

I don't like moveon.org or extremest views, left or right. This is part of the problem on both sides - too much partisan finger pointing, not enough realistic solutions.

I agree with your comments about protectionism, blocking illegal immigration (something the Federal goverment doesn't seem to care about), tort reform and simplifying the tax code. I vehemently disagree with reforming Social Security, largely because there's nothing really wrong with it, and most experts agree that it's an invented problem that Bush pulled out of his you-know-what. My cousin is the treasurer of one of America's most prestigious universities. He has a PhD in Economics, invests millions of dollars for the university and hob-***** with many of the Washington power brokers. He knows more about economics than many so-called experts have forgotten, and every time the social security issue comes up, he just shakes his head in abject disgust at the absurdity of the claim that it's "broken."

He tells me clearly that the deficit - and its inherent ramifications such as foreign ownership in America (chiefly Japanese) - is far, far, far, far more critical to America's economic health, yet no-one really seems to care or have a tangible solution for reducing it. In fact, this administration keeps running up the deficit by investing in ridiculous schemes like spreading democracy to countries that don't really want it, have never historically had it, and don't understand it.

Okay, off my soapbox. My doctor warned me about getting my bloodpressure up too high.

 

We're getting a tad off-topic. But if any business had the balance sheet of Social Security administration, and they did nothing, the board/executives would be thrown in prison faster than Ebbers. I agree that both sides are playing politics, and that Social Security isn't AS bad as the fear mongers say -- but it has issues and was a poorly designed/implemented system in the first place. Face it, it is a youth tax, where we rob from the young and starting out, so that we can hand off that money to people that own their own houses and have had their entire lives to save (but may not have because they were told that Mommy government would do for them what they were too irresponsible to do for themselves). Then the system failed -- it was supposed to teach people to save/plan more, since implementation, fewer people save, it drove a wedge between the young and old, it is a burden on the economy, and has grown beyond it's scope, and politicians are cowards to fix the many legitimate problems it has. Now this President is trying to address it, and instead of honest debate, the Ostrich party, er, Democrats, are claiming there's no problem; bankruptcy and mismanagement isn't a problem because it's 15-30 years away. (La la la, I can't hear you, just because we're in a train and heading for a washed out bridge isn't an issue... la la la)....

I agree they're trying to make it better and over-stating the issue. But the Democrats are in denial about real problems, and trying to prevent any improvements.

I do agree that foreign investment is a bigger issue. But Japanese? Welcome to the 80's. Check the Yuan some time -- it is pegged to the dollar for a reason. Walmart (Chinese outsource agency) and the Chinese economy is far far more at issue right now. (Based on growth rates). And while Social Security is a small issue, it is a HUGE symptom. Democrats lie to obfuscate and prevent progress, thus we're caught in our own quagmire of ignorance/misinformation. In business this is called signal theory; we broadcast that things are going to keep getting worse before they start getting better; and foreign economies react to that.

But the point is autos and business. Foreigners are investing less. They hear things like about Social Security and can do the math. The democrats won't allow population growth by legal immigration (which would help Social Security) because it would hurt labor. (We cater to special interests instead of national interests). They see the republicans can't fix things like Social Security, because of Democrats misinformation. They can do the debt numbers, and realize that our growth is slowing because of anti-business policies (including SS/medicare related ones), and they invest less, and that hurts the economy. Including car industry. They see the anti-U.S. sentiments in the world (whether it is because of their ignorance or not is irrelevant). And since we can't fix our own problems, they invest less in America, as do we.

 

Back to the topic of cars -- think about this business/economics and what it means to car markets. The chinese are coming. It may be another 50 years before they're the players that the Japanese are -- but long term, they are a FAR bigger threat. There's a chance that the world will reach a harmony/balance before then. But I'd be careful.

American companies do stupid things. One needs only look at GM and the EV1. They listened to the politically correct (the clueless left). They pissed away billions, and decades of research. Why? Some watermellons (green on the outside, red on the inside), said that the future was electric cars, and made bad laws (subsidies) by taxing the american workers and maying them pay for the research.

The only problem? We knew before hand that you couldn't make viable electric cars. The range was too short, the costs too high, the inconveniences substantial. Oh yeah, and they are dirtier and more poluting than IC engines. (DUH!). I realize the mouth breathers in the green party can't do math -- but follow the electricity some time. If it has to be made in a power plant, but more is lost in transmition and storage, you have to factor those costs in to how much fuel it took to make the electricity in the first place. Then also factor in hundreds of pounds of LEAD AND ACID (and other toxic substances) required to make an electric car, and so on. It takes a sub-simian IQ to figure out that electric cars are actually more polluting. And if we'd taken that money/time we pissed down a well, and spent it on simple improvements to what we had, (say hybrids, clean diesel, other optimizations) that it would have made a lot larger difference for the environement and american auto industry (and been less burden on the people).

 

Sorry Dke I couldn't stay silent anymore. Social security is in place because during the depression older workers were not retiring and with no new job creation younger workers could not get jobs. It was a system designed to secure some safety for older workers while openning up jobs for younger workers. The problem is a the time Social Security was implemented the average life expectancy was the retirement age. Now people are living into their 80s with regularity and the system is paying out more than it was intended to.

Also, unions were created because corporations, no matter how kind they may seem are all out for the bottom line. Workers had no rights, they worked for wages that kept them in poverty, the factories were dangerous, and they were given no time for their families. Unions changed this dramatically. I would agree that unions sometimes flex their muscle at bad times but for the most part do a good job in balancing the equation. Look at what they have done recently for interns and residents in hospitals. 120 hour work weeks were the norm for the docs than run hospitals. Now because of a movement started by some doctor organized unions the work week is down to 80 hours. Still a lot but 40 hours buys a lot more sleep.

We could talk ad naseum about environmental laws but they are in place to prevent dumping. It is much cheaper to just dump waste into rivers, water supplies, the ocean than to figure out a way to safely dispose of it. Look at Pittsburg as a prime example. The steel industry built America but the river use to catch fire. Companies can make all the money they want but there does need to be some responsibility taken.

Your views a white collar views. I know because I am also white collar and I hear them everyday. I also know that my parents and grandparents who weren't so lucky benefitted from social security.

You talk a lot about the evil Democrats but it is the now big government Republicans who are nation building and making the government grow at a rate even the most liberal tax and spend Democrats gasp at. The deficit is way to high and W's fix for Social Security is going to pile on even more. At least Reagan cut taxes and didn't spend as much. W is running the country like any of the businesses he has been involved in, straight into the ground.

 

did all this political stuff come from the SVT Event?

 

One thing that they where unsure about is that they may sell the Cobra's at all Ford dealerships

That would be nice, It would save about a 5 hr. drive, personally. Any more info on this would be great!

 

If you two want to carry on a political argument take it to PM most of us dont what to hear it.

 

Speak on brother, it pains me to think this (I've got no problem saying it), but if domestic auto manufactuers are unable to get thier crap together they need to die the death they so richly deserve. I despise corporate welfare and would much rather see and industry sink and die rather than live on with help from the feds.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your fundamental assumptions. Again, leaving partisan politics out of this, let's just look at the economics of the sliding U.S. dollar. The biggest problems isn't even budget deficits or jobs. It's the possible crash of the dollar on foreign exchange markets. The dollar lubricates the world economy, having replaced gold as the major international currency. Huge amounts of trade and cross-border investment are conducted in dollars. In some form, a "dollar problem" has long existed, it's true. After World War II there was a "dollar gap'': Europe and Japan didn't have enough dollars to import the food and machinery needed for recovery. The United States filled the gap with foreign aid and policies encouraging multinational American firms to invest abroad. These policies provided dollars, although the United States still ran big trade surpluses. Actually, foreigners often used the dollars to buy American goods.

The problem now is similar and different. As in the 1950s, today's outflow of dollars stimulates the global economy. Unlike the 1950s, it involves huge U.S. trade and current account deficits. (The "current account" includes trade plus other "current" overseas payments, such as travel, freight costs and dividend payments.) In 1990 the U.S. current account deficit was $79 billion, or 1.4 percent of gross domestic product. In 2005, it's topped $665 billion, or 5.6 percent of GDP.

The ballooning deficit has two basic causes:

First, the American economy has grown faster than other advanced economies. Since 1990 U.S. economic growth has averaged 3 percent annually (don't quote me on that but I think it's accurate), compared with 2 percent for the European Union and 1.7 percent for Japan. America's higher growth stinks in imports; Europe's and Japan's slower growth hurts U.S. exports.

Second, the global demand for dollars props up its exchange rate, making U.S. exports more expensive and U.S. imports cheaper. Indeed, many countries, particularly in Asia, fix their currencies to keep their exports competitive in the U.S. market. Instead of allowing surplus dollars to be sold on foreign exchange markets -- lowering the dollar's value -- government central banks in Japan, China and other Asian countries have purchased more than $1 trillion of U.S. Treasury securities. Private investors have also bought lots of U.S. stocks and bonds. All told, foreigners own about 13 percent of U.S. stocks, 24 percent of corporate bonds and 43 percent of U.S. Treasury securities.

Up to a point, this arrangement benefits everyone, but I think you see how dangerous and precipitous this could be. Yes, the world gets needed dollars; Americans get more imports, from cars to clothes. But we may now have passed that point. Hazards may outweigh benefits. The world may be receiving more dollars than it wants. A sell-off could spill over into the stock and bond markets and cause a deep global recession.

Here's how:

Foreign traders and investors sell dollars on foreign exchange markets. The dollar declines in relation to the euro, the yen and other currencies. The dollar's decline means that the value of foreigners' investments in U.S. stocks and bonds -- measured in their own currencies -- is also dropping. So foreigners stop buying U.S. stocks and start selling what they have. The stock market drops sharply.

Presto: the makings of a global recession. The stock market slide causes American consumer confidence and spending to weaken. If foreigners also flee the bond market, long-term interest rates on bonds and mortgages might rise. Higher currencies make Europe's and Japan's exports less competitive. Their industries stagnate. The United States, Europe and Japan constitute about half the global economy. Their recessions would hurt the Asian, Latin American and African countries that export to them. Markets interconnect; weakness spreads. It's grim, dude.

Note, however, that the dollar's vulnerability is a symptom of something else: the addiction of Europe and Asia to exporting to the United States. If their economies grew faster on their own, the massive U.S. payments deficits wouldn't have emerged. The dollar would have quietly drifted down. Foreigners would have invested less in the United States, because they'd have more investment opportunities at home. But Europe suffers from suffocating taxes and regulations. As everyone knows -- and as we car enthusiasts are acutely aware -- Japan has long favored export-led growth. And about 35 percent of China's exports go to the United States.

There's a stubborn contradiction. The world may be getting more dollars than it wants, but it likes the source of those dollars: large U.S. trade deficits. China has resisted U.S. pressure to raise the value of its currency (the darn Chinese government refuses to let their currency float, violating WTO regulations!); Europeans and Japanese deplore the recent increases in their currencies.

No one knows what will happen. The massive U.S. payments deficits could continue for years, with foreigners investing surplus dollars in American stocks and bonds. Gradual shifts in currency values might reduce the world's addiction to exporting to the United States. Or something might cause a dollar crash tomorrow. In that case, massive intervention by government central banks (buying unwanted dollars) might avert a calamity. Or it might not. All I'm saying is that we're in serious uncharted waters. If we hit a shoal, it will be very bad for everyone.

 

If you don't want to hear it, then don't read it. No one's forcing you.

 

this makes me happy, i want one, will get one, but i dont have to be number 1

 

SigMachi, it doesn't matter what it was created for, it matters how well it works. The national socialists were created to unify the country and work together towards germans helping germans. Looking at how well that worked. (Great in the short term, if you weren't German Jews, or one of the nations they invaded) And in the case of SS, it didn't create jobs which was its purpose -- like all taxes it is a burden on business that cost jobs, and reduced the growth rate and slowed the recovery. But the important thing is that it bought votes for the Democrats, on the backs of the very classes it claimed to help. Social Security definitely helped -- and it borrowed from future generations, and some bills came due (in reduced growth), soon the others are coming due which will bankrupt the system unless addressed. Is that a win? Depends when you live I guess.

Yes, corporations abused workers. The alternative was labor monopolies which were no better than the system they replaced. They also made us far less competitive and hurt themselves and others. So was the cures better than the diseases they replaced? They were if you refuse to look at the costs, or pretend that there were no other alternatives. (Which is required to be a good democrat). But being that we're supposed to be rational beings that think of cause and effect, not just drink the party cool-aid (for either party).

And you mention environmentalists. I know they mean well and have done some good. But again, they've done a ton of harm to the environment as well. Also they've cost lots of jobs.

Every action has a reaction; the laws of unintended consequences. It isn't a white collar view; it is the view of not being a hate-monger (class-monger), like some of the ignorant blue collar can be. They're so busy vilifying management that they screw themselves. But we should be rational and think about the consequences. Why are American car companies struggling? Union pensions, heatlhcare costs, liability costs, labor costs, regulations, and so on. Foreign companies can slaughter us from abroad as they don't have rules that make us such a blue collar utopia (that has cost so many jobs). It's so good that even if foreign companies come here, and start with a clean slate, they can beat us in our nation because of certain things that you call "success" and I call a very mixed bag.

 

Robert, I agree with you that FX is an issue. Why? Trade (as you say). But that's a mixed bag, if the Chinese don't keep propping us up, they crash. We know that things can't keep going as they are for 50 years -- but we don't know that they can't continue this way for 40. And most of these trade imbalances are cyclic -- so I doubt it will last long anyways. So sure, it is 5.6% versus 1.4% -- but it has gone up and down many times. So why freak out. If it's like this in 10 or 20 years, then I'd be more concerned. But being a micromanager usually has unintended consequences and makes things worse. (The liberal solutions). The Chinese only need to start buying things from us with their profits that they can't make there, like our planes, etc., and quickly things will balance out. We'll see...

The reason the foreigners buy our dollars, is because if the dollar crashes, our goods become cheaper in the world, and we can out compete them (or can't afford their goods). Either way, we're more self-sustaining than many of them are, and it would hurt them more than it would hurt us. Instead of hoarding the profits of the benefit, instead of buying dollar, they know they have to spend it in the U.S., or on U.S. goods. Or else. So you're over fretting.

I agree that stock fluctuations could hurt. But what you're really saying is that people are no longer speculating on American companies based on their growth but because of FX rates. Right now, we outgrow Europe by a lot -- so we not only need to have the FX rates drop, but drop more than the growth rate (less their own). We'll see if that happens in a big way. But I agree that's one of the bigger concerns. Most likely we're going to have some inflation, which fixes most of this mess, and depreciates the value of the debt -- but that too makes the cost of our goods less (relative to foreign competition), which drives up demand. And much of this can be traced to inefficiencies in our markets, often due to things like over regulation, inflated labor prices, and so on.

Things will work out. They always do. The question is how bad/big of a correction, and how long will it take? With the capacity and the technology of the U.S., I have faith it isn't as bad as the doom & gloomers. But there's a lot of downside before then. But that downside correction also means brighter future (long term). So like always; be prepared for bad times, but don't fret over things you don't have control of. There's way to many possibilities. We should clean up and fix what we can -- like labor, immigration, security, healthcare, social security and so on. All these things additively help.

 

If you don't want to hear it, then don't read it. No one's forcing you.
[/b][/quote]

Yeah because a topic entitled "GT500 info from SVTOA Event" is the proper place to discuss social security.

 

 

Chuckle. Point take. This from a person who has a hyperactive drummer (with carrot sticks) as their avatar on a MUSTANG board ;-)