GM's CEO Akerson Pushing for Higher Gas Taxes - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

GM's CEO Akerson Pushing for Higher Gas Taxes

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
calronmoonflower
Jun 07, 2011 22:16:16 Article
#2
KillerGM
Jun 07, 2011 22:27:30 Of course, he pushes for higher taxes than stricter regulations. ;)

But it's really a combination of both that will cause any kind of advancement.

I'd like to say that what works for Europe is not easily applied to the US - it is geographically much bigger than Europe and people tend to have to travel much greater distances for work. When gas prices get high, people in the lower-income jobs have to work 20 hours a week just to pay for the gas to get to work that week. Which is crazy.

I'm all for people buying and companies making more fuel efficient vehicles and better public transportation. This guy is right, though, in that it has to hit people's wallets to get them to buy better vehicles.

*shrug*
#3
calronmoonflower
Jun 07, 2011 22:41:14
This guy is right, though, in that it has to hit people's wallets to get them to buy better vehicles.

In this case "better vehicles" would likely be GM vehicles, so he is asking for regulation that will make his company more competitive, while punishing everyone else including the customer.
#4
KillerGM
Jun 07, 2011 22:52:08
This guy is right, though, in that it has to hit people's wallets to get them to buy better vehicles.

In this case "better vehicles" would likely be GM vehicles, so he is asking for regulation that will make his company more competitive, while punishing everyone else including the customer.

I didn't really get that from the article, as most vehicle manufacturers will have to deal with increased regulation on their end, as well.

I mean, no doubt he wants GM to benefit more than anyone else, I just don't disagree that a higher gas tax will get people to buy more fuel-efficient cars. If that means they buy more GMs because GM is putting out better fuel-efficient cars, then good for GM, I guess. ;)

It did happen that when gas prices went up, sales of those stupidly big vehicles went down (and thus the car companies couldn't compete with the smaller cars and then had to get money from the gov't, blah blah blah), so one could learn from it in that way.

But the article is also right in that arguing for higher taxes is political suicide.
#5
Cpt_Micha
Jun 08, 2011 9:50:21 Well Gm, couldn't compete because of a very bad public image. Most of their cars, could compete on an even gas mileage basis, and price. People only bought the stupid worthless SUVs though, and GM advertising went to focus on them.

Between that and some of the most extraoridinarly bad management ever seen on a major coporate level they almost died.

Personally I think a third factor contributed to the near death of gm, beyond the credit crash (which was the biggest) was the fact that let's face it other than Cadillac, all gms are the same to each other. They are effectively competing against themselves, and they didn't even attempt to make the various brands different.

The Firebird and the Camaro are good examples, other than the bodywork they are identical cars, save for the Pontiac has a much much better interior than the Chevrolet.

The two cars should have had different drivetrains at least.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 calronmoonflower Jun 07, 2011 22:16:16	Article
#2 KillerGM Jun 07, 2011 22:27:30	Of course, he pushes for higher taxes than stricter regulations. ;) But it's really a combination of both that will cause any kind of advancement. I'd like to say that what works for Europe is not easily applied to the US - it is geographically much bigger than Europe and people tend to have to travel much greater distances for work. When gas prices get high, people in the lower-income jobs have to work 20 hours a week just to pay for the gas to get to work that week. Which is crazy. I'm all for people buying and companies making more fuel efficient vehicles and better public transportation. This guy is right, though, in that it has to hit people's wallets to get them to buy better vehicles. shrug
#3 calronmoonflower Jun 07, 2011 22:41:14	This guy is right, though, in that it has to hit people's wallets to get them to buy better vehicles. In this case "better vehicles" would likely be GM vehicles, so he is asking for regulation that will make his company more competitive, while punishing everyone else including the customer.
#4 KillerGM Jun 07, 2011 22:52:08	This guy is right, though, in that it has to hit people's wallets to get them to buy better vehicles. In this case "better vehicles" would likely be GM vehicles, so he is asking for regulation that will make his company more competitive, while punishing everyone else including the customer. I didn't really get that from the article, as most vehicle manufacturers will have to deal with increased regulation on their end, as well. I mean, no doubt he wants GM to benefit more than anyone else, I just don't disagree that a higher gas tax will get people to buy more fuel-efficient cars. If that means they buy more GMs because GM is putting out better fuel-efficient cars, then good for GM, I guess. ;) It did happen that when gas prices went up, sales of those stupidly big vehicles went down (and thus the car companies couldn't compete with the smaller cars and then had to get money from the gov't, blah blah blah), so one could learn from it in that way. But the article is also right in that arguing for higher taxes is political suicide.
#5 Cpt_Micha Jun 08, 2011 9:50:21	Well Gm, couldn't compete because of a very bad public image. Most of their cars, could compete on an even gas mileage basis, and price. People only bought the stupid worthless SUVs though, and GM advertising went to focus on them. Between that and some of the most extraoridinarly bad management ever seen on a major coporate level they almost died. Personally I think a third factor contributed to the near death of gm, beyond the credit crash (which was the biggest) was the fact that let's face it other than Cadillac, all gms are the same to each other. They are effectively competing against themselves, and they didn't even attempt to make the various brands different. The Firebird and the Camaro are good examples, other than the bodywork they are identical cars, save for the Pontiac has a much much better interior than the Chevrolet. The two cars should have had different drivetrains at least.