I mourn the loss of indigenous industrial capacity. I don’t mourn the loss of the big three.

It won’t be long before the taxpayers own the big three… and the cool thing about state owned enterprises is they never have to go out of business.

“We have hope things will turn and change,” Green said. “This is no fault of our own. People are not purchasing cars right now.”

No fault of your own? Wow, they have mastered Obama’s art of deflection. When Obama is done people won’t be driving cars. Period.

When the stupid European no lead law came in. It’s a MAJOR pain, and a lot of the quality problems recently track back to that.

If Intel and AMD said “fine, no computers” the EU would have had to back down.

Cars will cost $100,000 – why not just ban cars and get it over with.

First, given the years lead time to adapt car manufacture to new standards, how can manufacturers ratioinally plan if faced with unpredicatable legislative enactments.

Second, what happens if these standards are technologically incompatible. Then even your “comply with strictest standard” rubric fails.

Third, what about drivers who move to another state; how do they remain in compliance with the new standards without perhaps having to pay a fortune to retofit.

Now the first and third points might be solvable with more legislative fixes – my point is that one needs to look at all the ramifications – and one also has to look at the costs of proliferating laws and expanding bureaucracies and compliance costs if you’re dealing with 50 states, each of which is going to want its toll and legion of enforcers and bureaucrats – what a waste of resources.

And heading towards economic disaster, the last thing we want is to waste more resources through inefficiency.

So at least, color more skeptical.

1) Kalifornia sets a stricter standard
2) Automakers re-tool to meet it
3) 6 months later New York sets an even stricter standard
4) Automakers re-tool to meet it
5) Not to be left out, Oregon sets the strictest imaginable standard
6) By now, the cars have become so light and flimsy that they can no longer meet crash test standards and The One’s energy policies have miraculously kept the price of gasoline low, despite best efforts to do otherwise, so no one will buy the light and flimsy cars. Oh, yeah, there’s still smog in in L.A.

If there have to be standards they have to be uniform, not subject to the whim of the legislatures of the several states. If Kalifornia wants a stricter standard, let them make their case to the EPA (or whoever it is that sets the CAFE standards).

PS – - My 2003 Civic Hybrid says Honda, not Hyundai.

Such as state requirements for emission limits conflicting with required safety or crash test features? Or particulate standards making high-mileage diesels uneconomical even when they’re the most efficient solution?

Government regulations are going to increase the costs of automobiles and decrease the ability of companies to differentiate from each other to meet customer needs. You decry the “gas-guzzling SUV”, but there are those for who this is necessary and even economical – try moving a family of six with four young children on a long trip in your Prius. It ain’t happening. I suspect most here are tired of being told what we “should” want or “should” be driving, and just want to be left alone to make our own choices and pay the costs for them.

Now instead of being subject to the idiocy of one state government and the Feds, we’re to be subject to the concentrated incompetence of all 50 states’ regulations. This is not a good thing, and will push up auto prices at a time of great uncertainty and trouble for the industry. Higher prices = lower sales, regardless of the supposed moral rightness of the cause. Lower sales and higher product costs only add to the challenges for the auto industry. Will we really be better off if they go John Galt?

Years ago, California did impose its own emissions standards. It was a ngihtmare. The automakers built two versions of every car: known as Californaia and 49 State versions.

They couldn’t sell the California versions in the rest of the country because:

a) they cost more

b) they ran like dog poop. Nobody wanted them.

And no, the Japanese couldn’t sell their California versions elsewhere, either.

The whole thing was a nightmare, which is why the federal goverment added the rules about a single national standard. I’m shocked that Obama would even consider revoking that rule in the middle of a recession.

That’s an example of an industry that is heavily regulated on a state-by-state basis (and also at the Federal level). There is no such thing as a nationwide insurance policy. The policies differ in every state, and are often offered by different subsidiaries. It’s an absolute mess. If you think our health care system is a good blueprint for regulation of the auto industry, this is the way to go.

I’ve been waiting twelve years now for this technology to be developed so consumers could have the choice, but the auto industry has let me down… not to mention let itself down.

Ahh yes, obviously a grand conspiracy between the auto companies and the evil oil companies to keep the 300mpg SUV off the market. The technology is there but Rove/Cheney/Haliburton/Exxon/Ford won’t let it come to market.

I want better options.

Yea, because government taking options off the table through heavy-handed state-by-state regulation is going to give you (and everybody else) better options. Guess again.

“4) Most states already have the infrastructure in place to enforce compliance and require cars to go through emissions testing. Maybe there would be more cost, but I doubt it’d be prohibitive.”

No, I’m sorry, you’re wrong. Most states do not have the infrastructure in place to test emissions. Even here in Georgia, only some counties require testing.

Technology doesn’t happen over night. This isn’t Star Trek, where new technologies are available next season and new vaccines are developed by a Dr. McCoy in a lab on the Enterprise in 20 minutes. This is Real Life, where new technologies take years and even decades to develop.

I remember my family’s first computer. It was 1989. It was an 8086 XT IBM-compatible Motorola chip using DOS 2.01 and had a 5.25″ drive and a 3.5″ double density with no hard drive. It was later upgraded to an AT with a 20MB hard drive and 8086 AMD chipset. Twenty year and 6 computers later, I have a 320GB hard drive on a 2.4GHz Dual-Core Turion, but I’m still using a keyboard and mouse. Where’s my Virtual Reality headset?! Where is my 3-D holographic display?

Where are the flying cars?! I was promised flying cars! I don’t see any flying cars!!!

(With apologies to Avery Brooks)

This has nothing to do with the market. This has to do with a bunch of nutters in Sacramento and D.C. deciding what the market should look like, and then when it doesn’t, using the force of law to achieve the result they want.

The automakers will build the cars people want for the price they are willing to pay. If they had technology to make an SUV get 40 or 50 or 100 mpg and still be affordable don’t you think they would be using it? That’s where the massive conspiracy comes in. In order to believe that some kind of magical fuel-efficiency technology is being withheld from the marketplace, you really have to believe all the automakers are colluding to keep it from you. For some reason. The bildeburgers and illuminati are probably involved.

P.S. “Reply to this” is your friend.

But for a period of six months when gas was around $4 gallon has fuel economy been the main driver of most folks car buying decisions.

As long as gas is under $3/gallon, while folks would like better fuel economy every thing else being equal, most will go for other forms of value (style, quality, performance, reliability) before fuel efficiency.

Is that they do spend a ton of money building cars nobody wants, but it’s cars like the defunct EV-1 and their future flop, the Chevy Volt. They have sunk billions of dollars in R&D in that thing. Any guesses on how much money they lose on every Volt that rolls off the line?

But there is a rub and my knowledge is a bit crusty on this. If the EPA is overseeing an Environmental problem in a state, if the State EPA’s standards are more stringent then the Fed EPA will adopt the State EPA Standard.

Could, California by the mere fact of having higher EPA standards, require all cars in the US meet California standards? US Automakers probably could not meet these new standards. Which means they cannot make money, which means more money to bailout the UAW.

Your point is not valid because the Feds already heavily regulate the auto industry. This is not a state’s rights case–this is a case where a single state wants to butt in and this will only cause chaos and add expense to a product with NO real benefit to the public.

California cannot solve the global warming problem (since it doesn’t really exist) and this is just an effort from the wacko left to take away freedom from the people.

but it’s pretty obvious from that statement that you don’t know anything about business.

Car manufacturing is a big business. This is also a fluid business. It all depends on technology. If the technology were there and people wanted it, the magic cars would be on road already. Also Prius would be dominating the roads if fuel economy was the sole factor.

Imagine if every state were to have different regulations for cars? that would be very confusing. I think its going to be federal regulation ultimately.

Its all about forcing those “guzzler” driving crazies to drive the soap boxes.

This should kill the auto industry. I love it and hate it at the same time. Love it because this will hurt UAW. Hate it for workers losing jobs….

That’s because they should have been preparing for this inevitability ten years ago instead of gaming congress to prevent the need to evolve with the times. Don’t worry, someone will fill that gap.

If the Federal government at the same time completely got out of the business of setting emission standards or setting fuel economy standards and left all these matters to states, and if.

If you could resolve the interstate commerce issues, especially to protect buyers who move to a different state from incurring a prohibitive cost regading their vehicles not conforming to their new state’s requirements.

But it’s got to be one or the other – none of this joint custody game between Federal and states.

A voice of reason. Well said, Loganedwards.

of emission regulation. You paid more for the CA car and it had stricter maintenance and warranty requirements as I recall. So, we have “36 State” cars and the others pay more. Where the bite comes for the companies is stricter CAFE in big market states eliminates their more profitable lines. Trying to make a profit off econoboxes in competition with transplants and Asian makers is essentially impossible for the formerly Big 3 because of their legacy costs.

I see a big black market in CA and other “Green” states and a lot of licensing vehicles in other states and not having to face the emissions testing and such. There’s already a huge market in boat sales offshore and moorage in Mexico, Canada, and even here in Alaska to avoid CA taxes on boats. There’s even a bit of that here in Juneau; our moorage is quite expensive by Alaska standards, so lots of people keep their boats in Hoonah and fly over to use their boat. You can actually fly over every weekend and still pay less.

So, there’ll be all sorts of enforcement schemes and extra taxes and documentation and more probable cause for cops to stop you.

Yes, and when that happens, companies usually go into bankruptcy, they don’t get bailouts from the govt.

The $15 billion wasn’t a huge sum in itself. (It will soon seem quaint.) I don’t know whether a portion of that loan would be recoverable by the govt in a bankruptcy. (It was, however, a constitutional travesty IMO.)

A question for you…If the Dems grant the states the rights to set their own emission standards, will they

1) let the Big Three bear the cost of the emissions (i.e. go bankruptcy)?, and
2) refrain from transfering federal funds to the drunken sailor (blue) states (that will come from the more responsible states)?

Per the quotes on the Yahoo finance page, GM had and annual revenue of $166 Billion and Ford $161 Billion. Respective total liabilities are $461 Billion and $262 Billion.

They have productive assets. Just not as productive as the prices they need to charge to break even. It’s not in anyone’s interest, including their creditors, just to shut everything down.

A bankrupcy would force the operators of the assets to live within the means they provide. Not at the same pay level for all Big Three employees, but hey, that’s life.