one of the major player in killing public transportation networks over the decades (a big reason why we have no decent train system, overall)? In addition to the fact that the leaders of that industry have had no vision for the future at all. They are largely responsible for their own demise. They have been a negative force for a long time, in my opinion.

Where do you think the reorganized auto industry will get the capital to develop and manufacture these new cars?

What do you think all the world's car makers have been doing for the past decade? They have been using their (increasingly small) revenue stream and borrowing capacity to restructure their businesses. If the desired new technology existed it would be in use.

GM has been working on an electric car for a decade or so and the best that they can promise is a range of 40 miles without it having to switch on a conventional engine.

In addition closing all the "unprofitable" parts of the business will throw even thousands more workers into the street. The problem with the big three was not that they were slow to change to new technology, but that they (and the workers) were late to understand that the comfortable arrangement that provided for high profits and good working conditions (enforced by strong union contracts) was no longer economically viable.

GM isn't responsible for the huge rise in health costs in the US, nor for the improved lifespan of retirees, yet they had promised to pay for health and retirement when both were cheaper.

Let's hear some real suggestions on how the conventional auto can be replaced using current technology and not some vague leave-it-to-the-market statements. If there were an easy solution some other auto maker would have adopted it already. Prius is not a real solution, and Toyota is also facing cost rises as their workforce starts to age as well.

A government bridge loan with appropriate conditions is the only way to transition to something new. No one objects when the government does this for Boeing or Lockheed, by paying for useless military aircraft while they work on their commercial business developments.

improved since the 70's? Thirty years after the embargo it doesn't seem like there has been much improvement or the will and regulations to make any of the carmakers to pay attention.

I can't speak for the longevity of hybrids, but 100,000 is just the beginning for a Toyota...at least the old ones. Mine's logged a paltry 176,000 over 23 years and still gets almost 25mpg (with a carburetor and riding on 31" tires...not my addition).

We tend to view the efficiency of an automobile by how much gas it uses going A to B, but how much energy is expended in manufacturing the automobile? A still running vehicle at more than 200,000 miles (and running well) is probably better for the environment than an extra 5mpg off the line.

Not flashy, but it means something. And what it means is that people are willing to spend extra money to buy the vehicle. When your reputation is "shit, that thing will run forever" you've got both legs up on your competition, especially if that competition apparently exhibits little regard for how long the vehicle will run...or, "yeah, you just have to replace the timing chain at 70,000, everybody does."

It boils down to long-term thinking, which is the first facet of the Toyota Way and has, in the past, been completely ignored in Detroit. Things are getting better, particularly at Ford. But i fear that the component testing and development which has brought Ford quality up recently will be sacrificed first.

The formula is simple: build the best cars in the world and people will buy them. And when they sell their old one, they'll use the money to buy a new car from you. But you can't build the best cars in the world without long-term thinking and approaching the process rather than the product.

Don't get me wrong, Toyota is not perfect. The Tundra is a boondoggle that will cost them dearly. And they have labor issues too, the difference being is that they're looking at those issues years out, whereas Detroit has tended to just ignore problems and hope that they go away...when they don't we're all treated to "the sky is falling."

If i were buying a brand new car, i'd buy a Ford. But i wouldn't touch a used Big Three product with a 10 foot pole.

The real issue that no one is talking about publicly yet is the need to convert the sprawl economy that runs on nominally cheap oil (even though the true cost is much higher given externalities and resource depletion) to something that is sustainable for both the US and the planet, and is economically feasible.

The real problem is that nothing is on the horizon and the US auto industry is tanking, threatening several million jobs directly and probably tens of million indirectly. It is not a politically viable option to just let the auto industry go bankrupt. While bankruptcy might be the better solution economically, it's a non-starter politically, especially for Dems.

The real solution involves finessing as smooth a transition as possible between the old system based on "cheap oil" that isn't and whatever is going to replace it in the undetermined future. This is obviously a very complex problem, and it is not possible for the market to make it unaided, especially heading into a deep recession, since it is going to be extremely capital intensive proposition with a lot of moving parts and many powerful vested interests with a stake in the process.

The real obstacle is Michigan/Detroit as a Democratic labor stronghold. With the Dems in charge, this interest group is going to expect and push for a bailout comparable to that gifted to the financial industry by the GOP. The Dems will have a hard time resisting this alliance of ownership, debt holders, management and labor, especially in the present climate of government largesse. One already hears the cry, "Why not us, too?"

I hope that Obama and his team have a more comprehensive vision and plan. Solving this is really key to the overall challenge that the US and world face owing to a crisis that is at bottom an energy crisis that is causing not only instability but unsustainability.

Here is an article worth pondering while thinking about this. The Unsustainability of Sustainability by Bill Devall

There is a long history of getting rid of car company presidents. Ford has not been as touched by it as Chrysler and GM because the family name is still a must, for the most part, in the board room. For Chrysler, since Lee Iacocca, there really has not been anyone as masterful and the latest partnership with MB has not been exactly a barn burner. GM has had a major shake up with the Proctor Gamble's John Smale who took over from Robert Stempel. All of these were evolutionary changes and none of them could affect the basic structure of the business.
The point about the finance arms of the auto industry is interesting. Let us take GM for example. As you know GMAC is the finance arm of GMAC. If they had gotten rid of GMAC there would not be a GM right now. Back in the days when Wall Street was downgrading the bond of GM, it was GMAC bonds which saved GM. In fact, it was a result of GMAC's action back then and their ability to borrow money from City Bank and others that kept GM going. The latest saving leap by the finance arm of GM came when GM sold 51% of GMAC to Cerberus, I believe. That was a large cash infusion into GM. GM still owns 49% of GMAC and it was actually negotiating with Cerberus for the sale of Chrysler for the remaining 49% of GMAC in exchange for Chrysler ownership (rough details). Now, the same can be said for FMCC and Chrysler Credit and Toyota Credit and Honda Credit. It is very easy to point to the loss that finance companies post but one has to remember that they are the marketing arms of the Big Three. So, when you get those special deals on leasing or retail rates you are getting them through the finance arm of the car company. Or when those lease deals are too good to be true you have to think why. Somebody is subsidizing something. Your local bank does not want to give you such deals usually. When Sloan suggested that GM setup a finance corporation almost 90 years ago, it was with the intention that its sole purpose be to sell cars and not make money. The finance arms have done much more than that in the past. As far as the present losses of the finance arms, one really has to examine the details. It could be that the loss was already taken into account as part of a marketing strategy or it could be bad loans caused by the economy. Again, one has to see the fine print.
Now, as to the productivity of the car companies, let me share with you that the Big Three have some plants that are better in quality than Toyota or Honda. The best example is the Grand Prix plant of General Motors. The problem is that the cost per car of Honda and Toyota is far greater and the reasons are pensions, health care, benefits. It is not worker productivity or lack of productivity or lack of expertise.
The reason that the car companies have been making the SUV's is that the public loves suv's. I do not know about you, but if I have a choice between driving a suv, a van or a car, I will always choose a suv followed by a van and then a car. There are suv's that are gas guzzlers but there are suv's that are are almost as good as cars when it comes to gas mileage. The other reason that the car companies love to produce suv's and trucks is that they make more money on them than they do on cars.
We have to also keep in mind that nobody really cares about gas mileage when gasoline is cheap. Nobody hears the voice of the environmentalists or the voices of doom and gloom when times are good. The only time we hear them is when it hits our pocket books. Now, when gasoline is back to being more affordable I hope that we do not make the same mistake. How many times have the car companies been down this road before: gasoline expensive-let us change-gas cheap-forget about change.
The car companies have tried to get rid of the difference in cost per vehicle by outsourcing the labour. Several car lines are already being made outside of the United States and Canada. (I use the two countries because they have had the auto pact since the 60's I believe?) Lot of the cars that we are driving come from Mexico now. Some of the cars that the Big Three are selling are coming from Europe as well. I am sure that you know that GM and Ford are pretty big in Europe. They also have forged allies in Asia.
Let us just hope, for all of our sakes, that the new electric cars that GM and Chrysler roll out, in the next twelve months, are very successful.