Government May Nationalize the Auto Industry

[Flash]

Is there a government sponsored transportation system that does not bleed money? That's a real question (not a sarcastic "I already know the answer", statement).

I know that the Public Transportation System in Austin was millions of dollars in the red every year, and it's the same thing in Memphis. The "DART" program in Dallas has never been in the black, and the rail system in San Fran was so costly and the ridership was so low that it would have been more cost effective for the city to lease a Chevy Tahoe and pay the gas for every individual rider. AmTrack? Has anyone been on one of those trains?

I don't believe any of the subway/metro systems in the US make money, but they are critical to the larger transportation needs of several US cities, more than making up for their cost in greatly lessening traffic and the necessary infrastructure to support it. New York City and DC are the two best examples of this in the US, both cities basically can't function effectively without their mass transit sytems.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't believe any of the subway/metro systems in the US make money, but they are critical to the larger transportation needs of several US cities, more than making up for their cost in greatly lessening traffic and the necessary infrastructure to support it. New York City and DC are the two best examples of this in the US, both cities basically can't function effectively without their mass transit sytems.

I can't even think of the gridlock in this town if all metro lines shut down for a day or two.

 

[Mumbles]

When I left Whidbey, the Seattle monorail was turning into a real boondoggle.

 

[Bevo16]

I don't believe any of the subway/metro systems in the US make money, but they are critical to the larger transportation needs of several US cities, more than making up for their cost in greatly lessening traffic and the necessary infrastructure to support it. New York City and DC are the two best examples of this in the US, both cities basically can't function effectively without their mass transit sytems.

New York and DC are good examples of where it works. It is silly to try to force it into areas like Dallas and Austin where the geography is not favorable and the people don't want. Texas folks have proven time after time that they don't want to ride light rail, but more and more cities keep throwing money away building it. It's just not in the culture.

This is now the most off track thread in the history of teh interwebz.

 

[OUSOONER]

If it did become nationalized..this is what I see in our future.

" DOT awards 2010 Taurus contract to Chevrolet. Ford to appeal"

" 2010 Taurus to begin mass production in 2017 pending outcome of Ford's appeal."

 

[Ave8tor]

 

[FlyinSpy]

When I left Whidbey, the Seattle monorail was turning into a real boondoggle.

North Haverbrook was having a heckuva time with theirs as well, until they brought in Lyle Lanley:

 

[whitesoxnation]

Hmmm

Too much government intervention?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-CEO-Wagoner-to-step-down-apf-14777108.html

GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request

 

[Random8145]

I don't believe any of the subway/metro systems in the US make money, but they are critical to the larger transportation needs of several US cities, more than making up for their cost in greatly lessening traffic and the necessary infrastructure to support it. New York City and DC are the two best examples of this in the US, both cities basically can't function effectively without their mass transit sytems.

The New York Subway system was originally privatized when it first began from my understanding, the reason the city took it over was because they enacted price controls with a price ceiling, preventing the subway company from raising the price beyond a certain point. However, with inflation, the company had to raise the price each year, so once it hit the ceiling, the company could no longer make a profit, and was taken over by the city.

 

[BlackBearHockey]

I've been following this thread and am prepared to ask a completely unrelated question (at least... concerning the last four pages of union tangents).

I'll be looking at Ensignmobiles this coming June... and is it safe to buy a GM car? I heard on the news last night about the Government backing GM warranties and what not, but, a few years down the road, if GM is no more, will I have a hard time getting parts and what not? There are a good number of Chevrolet HHR's and Trailblazers with low miles in my price range, and I'd save 4-5k versus getting a Toyota/Nissan with the same style, but I would hate to find myself in a hard place in a few years.

 

[eddie]

and I'd save 4-5k versus getting a Toyota/Nissan with the same style, but I would hate to find myself in a hard place in a few years.

Because of warranty or lack of parts?

 

[knobbzy]

I'll be looking at Ensignmobiles this coming June... and is it safe to buy a GM car? I heard on the news last night about the Government backing GM warranties and what not, but, a few years down the road, if GM is no more, will I have a hard time getting parts and what not? There are a good number of Chevrolet HHR's and Trailblazers with low miles in my price range, and I'd save 4-5k versus getting a Toyota/Nissan with the same style, but I would hate to find myself in a hard place in a few years.

Yes, it is "safe" to buy a GM car. Financing (especially leasing) are becoming more and more difficult, however. The good news is that if you have cash
this is a wonderful time to buy as there are deals to be had. Not to mention if the car is under ~49K, there is some federal law that allows you to take a fed tax deduct on the local/city/state tax (iirc).

You know for all the crap GM gets, they actually build pretty good products. I mean the new Malibu is a pretty damn good car. The one thing to note is that has been a rash of stealerships closing as a result of the economy, this would in no way impact your warranty, but it might mean finding a local place for service a little more difficult.

JMHO

 

[The Chief]

Parts/service will be no real problem, IMHO. My 1950's vintage cars present no problems obtaining most parts. Service, IMHO is better outside a dealership anyway.

The Government announced their plans for the auto industry over the weekend, and in a vote of confidence GM is down about 20% as we speak

If GM does go boom, some enterprising entity will step forward and offer warranties, for a few dollars, or what ever our new trading currency will be, to replace the new car warranties offered by the defunct GM. Toyota (and other) flush with billions and billions of $$$ will step forward to the fire sale and close the vacuum caused by GM’s departure. They will hire some of the millions that lost their jobs, albeit not at those inflated wages. They will probably buy all the spare parts supplies so all those GM vehicles on the road can keep on keeping on. ((I am hoping they will release the alleged 500 SS 396 engines that GM had in deep storage)) They would probably scoop up some of the better dealerships, not all. I have the sinking feeling that 2 of the largest dealers in my area are going belly up, soon if not soonest, or may have already.

 

[Bevo16]

I can't wait to get one of these:

You can find some more good comedy here:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/lemon.html

 

[Bevo16]

you now have fdic insurance on your warranty for a new gm or chrysler car. Your warranty is now backed by the taxpayer.

fify