angry digest

[Paul Rollins <psroll@domain.elided>]

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 08:26:46 -0700
>From: Lawrence.Gowin@domain.elided

>We've established that   ...
>the major US auto manufacturers are staffed by knucke-draggers.

To clarify the point: it isn't the staff, it's management that prevents
some U.S. car companies from producing cars that people like those on
this list consider interesting. I suspect that engineers and designers
would love to make more interesting cars than the Taurus or even that
devilsihly-intriguing Buick Century. An easy way to understand
management's attitude  is to recognize whom the car company management
see as their customer. Today, their customer is the shareholder, not the
person who buys the car. Management's product isn't sedans, SUV's,
trucks, minivans, or God forbid, sports cars. Their output is
"shareholder value." They get paid for keeping the stock price up, and
increasing earnings per share, cash flow, return on shareholder equity,
return on capital employed, return on net assets, and other financial
measures.  In return, they get ridiculously-large bonuses for short-term
results. Making and selling cars is just a way to churn money. There is
a formula that consumers have adopted as an acceptable vehicle and as
long as the producer/marketer stays close enough to it, they can sell
vehicles. Interesting, small-volume and/or low-profit cars are not the
way General Mumblers or Ford management see to maximizing shareholder
value or their own bonuses. Chrysler, tradtionally the most daring of
the three, as exampled by the Viper and Prowler, has also continued to
be the smallest of the three (until they were "Eaton" up by the German
taxicab producer).

Paul Rollins

------------------------------