2014 GM trucks recalled. DON'T DRIVE!

[MinnesotaEric]

So your saying that companies don't do development if not financed by Uncle Sam. I don't think so. They have to remain competitive and while they might not spend as much, it still saves operational dollars for other purposes.

It would appear that the government gave Ford an advantage that other makes didn't get.

Understand?

No, companies to research and development all the time, but some goals require more time or more money to develop. The entire auto industry told the EPA that they would not be able to hit 65 mpg in time for 2030. Thus more money is being brought to bear against the development challenges in an attempt to meet the goal of 65mpg CAFE standard by 2030.

Also, the government is willing to lend any auto OEM money if they meet the criteria to qualify for the loan.

It just so happens that Ford and Nissan both qualified.

What it comes down to is the development of better, lighter battery tech and development of new lighter manufacturing techniques that can mass produce inexpensively.

Both Ford and Nissan were retooling factory processes, where at a point in development cycles where they could begin trying to work on future tech.

Other OEMs are benefitting from this research as we look at their plans for increased aluminum and carbon fiber content in order to lighten vehicles. Ford and Nissan already owned processes for making such content, the issue was to try and mass produce techniques that had been reserve for Nissan's NSX and Ford's Aston Martin on a grand scale.

Ford's first attempt is the new 2015 F150. I do not know what Nissan is bringing to market.

Once the 2015 F150 goes on sale, you can then say, Ford greedily used our tax dollars to reduce the weight and increase the capabilities of one of the most common vehicles on the face of the planet for the greater good, but that is a little bit different than saying Ford needed the money to be bailed out, isn't it?

 

[orezok]

A loan is a loan is a loan.

 

[two_bit_score]

A loan is a loan is a loan.

And if you take a loan from tax money and use the loaned money to build cars then they are built with tax money.

 

[two_bit_score]

Can you read a 10K financial statement?

I guess not. Because if you did, you'd see that Ford is in point of fact, very solvent. In fact, when the CEOS of the big three where called before Congress and asked if they'd be willing to take a pay cut for a bailout, Ford's CEO told Congress that Ford didn't need to be bailed out and he would not take a pay cut, that he was paid to do a job and was fine with his existing level of compensation (basically, he told them to piss off). What had Ford done to avoid bailouts? Ford shut down 17 plants, sold Rover, Volvo, Jaguar, and Aston Martin, streamlined Ford's product range, increase estimated build reliability to 150,000 miles, got the union to agree to more automation, thereby increasing quality, sold bonds to people like myself, and then bought those same bonds back early paying them off and retiring them.

Listen to Alan explain exactly what he did.



Ford didn't take a bailout. Instead Bill Ford replaced himself with a world class turn-around expert who did just that.

That said, if your mind is so blunted by bias to the point where you're unable or unwilling to distinguish the difference between a development loan and and an operational loan, or if you're so certain in your own thinking that new information is unable to move your view whatsoever, then I suggest you focus on increasing your mental acumen rather than making childish jabs at my user name.

You have a real hard time discussing anything when it's not on your terms. The issue you want to argue is "Ford didn't take the bailout'. The issue I'm asserting is that the statement "Ford - Built without your tax dollars" is a false or at the very least unprovable statement.

You can't prove that the statement "Ford - Built without your tax dollars" is true so you try to assert something different for which you feel you might have a case. That is a completely different and may be easier to argue so I can understand you trying to concentrate on the easier road. Just not something one would expect to see from a self described Oracle.

>>>>Definition of ORACLE

1
a : a person (as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak
b : a shrine in which a deity reveals hidden knowledge or the divine purpose through such a person
c : an answer or decision given by an oracle
2
a : a person giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions
b : an authoritative or wise expression or answer

 

[two_bit_score]

The EPA asked what it would take to be able meet 65mpg CAFE in 2030, and was told by the industry that the industry would not be able to hit that number without the development of new technology. Since the OEM's benefit from the development of new tech they were not given the money, but rather the EPA agreed to shoulder the development costs to pull forward (bring technology to market sooner than it would under normal market forces) future technology.

In other words, a profitable company may be putting money toward the development of future tech but more money would allow the technology to be developed faster and brought to market sooner, a good thing.

Understand?

Wow Eric…..maybe he sees it differently than you, the oracle.

 

[94BULLITT]

I'm surprised this thread has not disappeared or been locked with all the political talk. I had a post deleted last week because I said democrat.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

A loan is a loan is a loan.

In business and finance there are different types of loans with different types of risk profiles.

At the end of the day, a development loan is not a bailout.

What will really frost you is that in American history, all corporate bailouts have eventually been good for the economy and most often, benefited our treasury--which is to say in the most simplistic terms, that the taxpayers made money by bailing companies out as well as preserving jobs and commerce.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

You have a real hard time discussing anything when it's not on your terms. The issue you want to argue is "Ford didn't take the bailout'. The issue I'm asserting is that the statement "Ford - Built without your tax dollars" is a false or at the very least unprovable statement.

You can't prove that the statement "Ford - Built without your tax dollars" is true so you try to assert something different for which you feel you might have a case. That is a completely different and may be easier to argue so I can understand you trying to concentrate on the easier road. Just not something one would expect to see from a self described Oracle.

>>>>Definition of ORACLE

1
a : a person (as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak
b : a shrine in which a deity reveals hidden knowledge or the divine purpose through such a person
c : an answer or decision given by an oracle
2
a : a person giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions
b : an authoritative or wise expression or answer

Ford hasn't yet brought to market a vehicle benefitting from the development loan, soon it will.

Notwithstanding, you're attempting to redefine what my involvement in this discussion has been about and in doing so trying to redefine what the argument is about. By attempting to move the goalposts, you've finally acknowledged that Ford didn't take a loan as a bailout, they took a loan to develop technology in future products--quite a difference in need and motivation.

As for my Oracle thing?

1) Turns out Eric and ErictheRed is taken everywhere on the internet, I'm half Swedish, not Norwegian, yet still the need for a completely unique user name available everywhere.

2) My undergraduate from Northwestern is in Pastoral Studies—you know God-talk.

3) I hold that people who have issues with my user name are developmental children in that lacking rhetoric for an argument or reasonable pushback, they resort to ad hominem by taking issue with my user name.

4) This is the internet: Choose your adventure.

 

[Paystar]

Boy people are sure passionate for auto makers that charge you way too much for the quality of junk they are selling us. LOL.

 

[Monster5601]

Boy people are sure passionate for auto makers that charge you way too much for the quality of junk they are selling us. LOL.

Safety standards and emission requirements make up a great deal of the cost of a new vehicle and I certainly do not think current production vehicles are anywhere close to junk.

As for the development "loan" you guys are discussing, the government money has to be spend on advancing technologies and has to be track and reported. This money has nothing to do with Ford production or new model development.