This article certainly makes the case that the companies are/were very similar - market leaders with a heck of a lot of models, poor management, a belief that they were God's chosen people. Leyland went down the tubes after the British government ponied up many, many, many pounds.
Of the three of them - GM, Ford and Chrysler - GM seems to be most at sea. They have little idea of what they should be doing beyond keeping Wagoner in office. Ford is asking for a line of credit, rather than dollars today; true, this may be just a come-on. GM needs dollars in its coffers before Christmas. Chrysler is hiding behind its status as a private company.
I keep coming back to the question of why in a capitalist society we should save failing companies in industries where there are many successful companies. The Big Three have been unwilling or unaware of the need to revamp their operations for at least twenty years. Why should this behavior be rewarded?
1 comment:
There are certainly similarities. An inability to keep abreast of modern technology; sitting on laurels instead of investing in R&D; plain old bad management.
British Leyland fell foul of better vehicles from Ford (ironically), and the Japanese, back in the 1980's, a dilemma only now really being felt in the US.
Coming here from Europe six years ago I was shocked to find a car industry producing vehicles technologically a decade behind European and Japanese manufacturers.
Post a Comment