4 ms·

First, Ford didn't take any government money and actually reported a profit for the past year. Second, there's a difference between a subsidy and loans. GM an

by mdasen 17y ago

First, Ford didn't take any government money and actually reported a profit for the past year. Second, there's a difference between a subsidy and loans. GM and Chrysler got loans. Now, they were loans they couldn't have gotten on the open market because they looked too toxic. However, GM is now saying they'll be able to repay the loan pretty quickly. That indicates that investors misjudged the risk. Granted, it could have turned out otherwise (and I was one of the people that thought that it would have). And I think that people feel betrayed if a company has a potentially fatal flaw in their devices. This isn't an issue of mere reliability. If my car is unreliable, it's annoying and I have higher repair bills. If my car speeds up to 100MPH and I can't stop it, I can die. Those two things sit differently with consumers. And it looks like Toyota tried to write it off as nothing when it was something and tried to protect their image rather than their customers lives. It's one of those things: if a company has produced a wonderful, superior, reliable vehicle that kills 1 in 100,000, are they better? Most would say no, but it's easier to hide and it looks like Toyota was trying to hide their problems. Toyota isn't failed, but this will be a huge setback for them (and it should be). If you hide problems that are fatal to people, you deserve to have your sales drop. There's an outrage over that. Toyota screwed up big time for many years. The US auto makers also screwed up for many years. The US auto makers troubles came to light slowly in a way that was mostly about finances, wages, etc. Toyota's screw up is about human fatalities and came to light very quickly. That's a lot of the difference in the way it's being treated by the media.

kqr2 17y ago
The "Cash For Clunkers" program which cost the tax payers billions was an indirect subsidy for dealerships and automakers. The most popular new car under the program was the Ford Focus so Ford did benefit from government spending. Edmunds estimates that the Cash For Clunkers program actually cost tax payers $24,000 for each additional new car sold. http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/inde... http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1036/top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars/ http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/...
- grandalf 17y ago
  Excellent point. Note too that the program only subsidized certain sorts of vehicle upgrades (the kind that benefit US companies). Most anyone could have improved overall MPG by simply buying a Prius, but the incentives were structured not to give any additional incentive to such purchases.
MrFoof 17y ago
>If my car speeds up to 100MPH and I can't stop it, I can die. Is it just me, or is this a design problem just waiting to be solved. Not the accelerator design, but to counter the fact that although there are numerous ways to either slow down the car or bring it to a halt that consumers simply weren't aware of. Yes, you can shift into neutral. However, drivers didn't realize that. Yes, you can also turn off the engine. However, drivers didn't think of that. I had a friend years ago (college days) in which the brakes in his Trans-Am decided to not do much of anything. Boiled off brake fluid? Bad master cylinder? Overheated rotors? Who knows. Rather than downshift, or put it in neutral, or turn off the engine -- and then wait and use the handbrake -- he figured putting it into a tree at 60mph was his best option. The fact that drivers will not think to employ a variety of methods to slow down the car screams to me that there's something that doesn't exist, that should, that better caters to the average driver's instinctual reaction (which currently is depressing the brake pedal as hard as possible, and not giving up until the car stops). I realize that the vehicle could've taken both brake and accelerator inputs and simply given total priority to the brake, which would've mitigated many accidents, but there are other situations (like my friend who didn't think things through) which probably merit a "panic button" solution.
- grandalf 17y ago
  On the other hand, it shows just how reliable cars are that we don't think about those things. Generally people are quite foolish while driving. Have you noticed how people driving heavy SUVs with 4 wheel drive (which get better traction in the snow) think that they can safely travel 65 mph on icy roads? It seems not to occur to them that the vehicle has lots of momentum and will slide on ice.
- ams6110 17y ago
  The fact that drivers will not think to employ a variety of methods to slow down the car screams to me that there's something that doesn't exist, that should Real drivers education, and real demonstration of your competency to operate a vehicle before getting a license?
grandalf 17y ago
I didn't mention Ford getting bailouts, did I? BTW loans at below market interest rates are a subsidy. Calling them loans is just doublespeak. And turning off the key stops any car. The people who died when the car got to 100 miles per hour would probably also have died in the midst of nearly any minor malfunction that led to a bit of panic. That's not to excuse the error, but as I mentioned, I think out of control speed "bugs" tap into the public psyche a bit more than all the other possible equally risky bugs.
- andrewljohnson 17y ago
  Another uninformed comment. If you drove a Prius (I do) then you would know A) Prius's don't usually have a key in the ignition and B) you can't turn the car off while accelerating. Do you understand this is a software issue, chief? You have no clue what is going on. For all you know, the entire car might be unresponsive. Ever had a computer hang on you?
  - grandalf 17y ago
    Most of the problems were no pre-Prius models which you could turn off w/ the key. The Prius may be an exception. What difference does it make if a problem is "hardware" of "software" (or even user error for that matter), if it's common enough and if it results in loss of life? I was not arguing that Toyota shouldn't fix the problem, only that bugs are routine and we shouldn't pretend that there is negligence here.
    - andrewljohnson 17y ago
      Jeez... I'm just saying it's not the drivers screwing up. You actually can't stop the car.
  - smokey_the_bear 17y ago
    I also have a Prius, and though I haven't tried it, I've read that you can in fact turn it off while accelerating by holding down the power button for three seconds. Though make sure you can go straight for awhile, as it will also disable power steering.
InclinedPlane 17y ago
"Second, there's a difference between a subsidy and loans. GM and Chrysler got loans." General Motors is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States Treasury. This is a point of some significance and worth avoiding glossing over.
gojomo 17y ago
GM didn't just "get loans". It went bankrupt and is now majority-owned by the government. The $7 billion "loan" GM received, and plans to pay back, is a tiny fraction of the $50 billion in assistance it's received. And GM is still losing money. So GM is really just paying back the loan with other subsidies it's received.

by mdasen 17y ago

kqr2 17y ago

The "Cash For Clunkers" program which cost the tax payers billions was an indirect subsidy for dealerships and automakers. The most popular new car under the program was the Ford Focus so Ford did benefit from government spending. Edmunds estimates that the Cash For Clunkers program actually cost tax payers $24,000 for each additional new car sold. http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/inde... http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1036/top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars/ http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/...

grandalf 17y ago
Excellent point. Note too that the program only subsidized certain sorts of vehicle upgrades (the kind that benefit US companies). Most anyone could have improved overall MPG by simply buying a Prius, but the incentives were structured not to give any additional incentive to such purchases.

MrFoof 17y ago

>If my car speeds up to 100MPH and I can't stop it, I can die. Is it just me, or is this a design problem just waiting to be solved. Not the accelerator design, but to counter the fact that although there are numerous ways to either slow down the car or bring it to a halt that consumers simply weren't aware of. Yes, you can shift into neutral. However, drivers didn't realize that. Yes, you can also turn off the engine. However, drivers didn't think of that. I had a friend years ago (college days) in which the brakes in his Trans-Am decided to not do much of anything. Boiled off brake fluid? Bad master cylinder? Overheated rotors? Who knows. Rather than downshift, or put it in neutral, or turn off the engine -- and then wait and use the handbrake -- he figured putting it into a tree at 60mph was his best option. The fact that drivers will not think to employ a variety of methods to slow down the car screams to me that there's something that doesn't exist, that should, that better caters to the average driver's instinctual reaction (which currently is depressing the brake pedal as hard as possible, and not giving up until the car stops). I realize that the vehicle could've taken both brake and accelerator inputs and simply given total priority to the brake, which would've mitigated many accidents, but there are other situations (like my friend who didn't think things through) which probably merit a "panic button" solution.

grandalf 17y ago
On the other hand, it shows just how reliable cars are that we don't think about those things. Generally people are quite foolish while driving. Have you noticed how people driving heavy SUVs with 4 wheel drive (which get better traction in the snow) think that they can safely travel 65 mph on icy roads? It seems not to occur to them that the vehicle has lots of momentum and will slide on ice.
ams6110 17y ago
The fact that drivers will not think to employ a variety of methods to slow down the car screams to me that there's something that doesn't exist, that should Real drivers education, and real demonstration of your competency to operate a vehicle before getting a license?

grandalf 17y ago

I didn't mention Ford getting bailouts, did I? BTW loans at below market interest rates are a subsidy. Calling them loans is just doublespeak. And turning off the key stops any car. The people who died when the car got to 100 miles per hour would probably also have died in the midst of nearly any minor malfunction that led to a bit of panic. That's not to excuse the error, but as I mentioned, I think out of control speed "bugs" tap into the public psyche a bit more than all the other possible equally risky bugs.

andrewljohnson 17y ago
Another uninformed comment. If you drove a Prius (I do) then you would know A) Prius's don't usually have a key in the ignition and B) you can't turn the car off while accelerating. Do you understand this is a software issue, chief? You have no clue what is going on. For all you know, the entire car might be unresponsive. Ever had a computer hang on you?
- grandalf 17y ago
  Most of the problems were no pre-Prius models which you could turn off w/ the key. The Prius may be an exception. What difference does it make if a problem is "hardware" of "software" (or even user error for that matter), if it's common enough and if it results in loss of life? I was not arguing that Toyota shouldn't fix the problem, only that bugs are routine and we shouldn't pretend that there is negligence here.
  - andrewljohnson 17y ago
    Jeez... I'm just saying it's not the drivers screwing up. You actually can't stop the car.
- smokey_the_bear 17y ago
  I also have a Prius, and though I haven't tried it, I've read that you can in fact turn it off while accelerating by holding down the power button for three seconds. Though make sure you can go straight for awhile, as it will also disable power steering.

InclinedPlane 17y ago

"Second, there's a difference between a subsidy and loans. GM and Chrysler got loans." General Motors is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States Treasury. This is a point of some significance and worth avoiding glossing over.

gojomo 17y ago

GM didn't just "get loans". It went bankrupt and is now majority-owned by the government. The $7 billion "loan" GM received, and plans to pay back, is a tiny fraction of the $50 billion in assistance it's received. And GM is still losing money. So GM is really just paying back the loan with other subsidies it's received.