On 6/3/2009 12:51 PM, Eric wrote:
"Ryan wrote in message

Again, follow the train a bit further... things are cheaper to produce overseas because the US
government makes it more expensive to do business here.

Why do you think GM failed? GM's profit margin is so much smaller than the competitions because
of government regulation. And that's before you even get into the price impact that unions have.
Wa-huh? Sorry, I call BS on this one too. Most of GM's competitors (Toyota, Honda, Nissan...) have
factories and offices in the USA and therefore are subject to exactly the SAME regulations as the
"domestic" makes. That is of course in addition to the vehicles they sell having to meet all the
same regulatory standards such as safety, emissions, and MPG. So in that way, the playing field is
completely level.


Okay, I had it straight in my head, but I mixed two different points
together when typing them out. I concede I was unclear in my statement.
Let me expand:

Much of what the foreign automakers do is ASSEMBLE vehicles in the US,
not fully manufacture all the parts. Ford, GM, and Chrysler do as much
of that as they can, also, without running afoul of the Union, because
to do everything in the US is cost prohibitive.


The unions, which HAVE had a crippling effect on the domestic auto industry, of course are not part
of the government. It's not hard to see that if the industry had been more regulated by the
government, the unions would not have gained as much power and the picture might be very different
right now.

The more government regulations that are in effect, the less
innovative industry is, and the less productive it is. The level of
innovation and productivity is directly related to potential profit.

Government is like anti-matter to profit.