Ken’s Take:
(1) Team Obama says folks want Segway crossover hybreds (see yesterday’s post); but the folks say they want pick-ups and SUVs. Apparently the folks are too dumb to know what they want … but, they’re allowed to vote. Go figure.
(2) How dumb is Chrysler making cars that make money instead of ones that lose money … apparently the path to profitability is paved with unprofitable mini-cars. Go figure that one, too.
* * * * *
According to CNBC:
Just a week after the White House scolded Chrysler for relying too much on gas guzzlers, the company is unveiling a new SUV.
Chrysler insists the Jeep Grand Cherokee is a crowd favorite: “Customers have told us they want this vehicle and that it’s the right size.”
The White House slammed Chrysler for having a product lineup so heavily weighted with trucks and SUVs. It added that the automaker does not have enough products in the pipeline to meet an expected increase in demand for small cars.
But Chrysler is standing by the Grand Cherokee. It’s profitable, recognizable and the No. 2-selling vehicle in the Jeep lineup. Grand Cherokee
One analyst said: “I think it’s going to be written up as being out of touch, but from a business standpoint, I think it’s the right thing to be doing,”
“It may be hard for Chrysler to please both the government, which is demanding greater fuel efficiency from the Big Three, and its customers, many of whom still demand big cars. It would be far more foolish for Chrysler to abandon its core competencies in the Jeep brand lineup than it is to come out with a new” Grand Cherokee”
“To some extent, it’s refreshing to me to see them not kowtowing to the government.”
Full article:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30103625
* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link => The Homa Files Blog
The Homa Files 
April 9, 2009 at 10:22 am |
Team Obama has never said that people WANT small (or hyper small) cars. They’ve pointed out the obvious fact that large cars have a cost to our society (sending our money to the middle east so they can build madrassas and fund terror; emitting pollution, reducing parking availability, causing injuries to other vehicles in crashes, etc.)
The answer is not for government to mandate the types of cars that can be sold. It is to ensure that the societal cost of a vehicle is build into the operating costs. Enact a fuel tax that covers the external costs and let the market decide what it wants. This is no different than a tax on cigarettes or alcohol, which cost society by raising our medical costs. Offset the tax with reductions in the payroll tax, benefitting companies and their employees.
April 9, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
Hey Mark — Isn’t the point of a for-profit company to make a product that people WANT?
I guess if we just nationalize (or tax the heck out of) every company that makes a product that a certain segment of the political spectrum doesn’t like…
But I’m not for socialism.
April 10, 2009 at 11:25 am |
Um, so people should just be able to have any type of product they want in this country? Hand Grenades? Marijuana? Prescription medications? Biological agents?
It’s an established practice in any society to determine what types of products should be available, based on their benefits and costs to society. Some things are determined to be allowed, but are taxed to discourage their use and to pay for some of the external costs.
So you’re saying we should repeal the cigarette tax?