Originally Posted by dabateman
1. I never defended Reids statement. Go back and read.
Your offering a meaning of "is" argument. You proposed an adverse market scenario for Ford if the Dear Leader hadn't nationalized GM and Chrysler, supporting Reid's statement. If that's not defending Reid's statement, what is?
2. Economics would dictate that people are willing to sacrifice quality for price AND that would occur with a loss of GM and Chrysler. Their cars would be on the cheap and flood the market.
Your assuming GM and Chrysler would be shut down. Most probably they would have been broken up with the most profitable model lines bought up by other investors. New Jeeps or Chevys would be manufactured to sell profitably rather than under a government overseer motivated by union appeasement.
I am surprised at your inflexibility. Someone who claims to be so open-minded ought to readily accept the notion of a business lifecycle. Chevy is a brand name, it doesn't have to be manufactured by GM particularly if the only way it can be is via nationalization. Propping up zombie car companies with the taxpayers dime will lead to the same rotten results as Japan's propping up zombie banks, economic stagnation.
3. Leaving FEW leads to a false inflation in price as competition is the only thing driving the price DOWN. [/QUOTE]
Really? Go down to your local Walmart looking for price increases compared to price cuts. Funniest thing, after all the dire warnings Walmart would jack up prices after the wiped out mom and pop stores the opposite has happened.
Ford would still have to compete with Nissan, Toyota, etc. in the near-term and new manufacturers in the future. Let's say your non-competition scenario is somehow true so Ford books huge profits thanks to price increases. What do big profits attract in a free market? Anyone? Anyone? It begins with "c" and ends with "n".