That mandate would have been total disaster for GM. They were told to get competitive which is reasonable.

It looks like selective bankruptcy is in store.

From an economic viewpoint, they are identical. Ask yourself this: what would have happened if we had just pretended there was a war, spent all that money on building all those planes and munitions, but then just dumped it all into the ocean instead? Would it have had the same effect on the economy? How would that be different from spending all that money on anything else?

No. I think the policies Roosevelt enacted were working slowly, and the war helped put the economy into overdrive by creating many more jobs. I think it was a combination. You can't deny that those policies didn't bring the unemployment rate down significantly. But we were already in such a black hole, because of Hoover's nonaction, that it was going to take a very long time to come out of it.

What really kills me, is that we have allowed it to happen again, by deregulating everything in sight. It's really too bad we can't regulate greed. And ethics.

GM successfully made electric cars back in the 90s, so don't tell me they don't already have the technology. And they are already making compressed air cars in Europe.

Why is so hard to find innovative people here, in the US? We are supposed to be the almighty greatest country ever, right? :rolleyes:

Why?

They would have been put out of work while the companies completely retooled. The process of mass producing a new car, esp one as radical as the one you are talking about, would require a massive amount of work and change. The unions want status quo or more, not less. It is not like flipping a lightswitch.

And that is probably going to happen anyway. At the very least, they could have been making more fuel efficient cars and hybrids while they design the other ones. And as I said, they successfully made electric cars in the 90s. They could easily start making them again.

I don't believe they successfully made electric cars. They made some. They were not successfull and they were not mass produced. We can debate why but the reality is that they are going to make what they can be profitable with. The bottom line is the dollar. It was so in the 90's and it is so now.

A prototype is very different than mass production and meeting all the requirements that go with it.

More half truths. When the employee retires, GM stops paying. Why? The retirement fund is fully funded. No legacy costs exist when management is honest and responsible.

You conveniently forgot facts to post a myth. GM stopped funding those pension funds in the 1990s. Therefore GM still owes that 1990 money - with interest. Toyota does not have this problem because corporate management was honest. Toyota funded their pension funds when required.

Anyone who believes GM has legacy costs is forgetting facts to promote a myth. GM's legacy costs are directly traceable to people, including Rick Wagoner, who stopped funding the pension funds to avert the 1991 bankruptcy. GM was four hours away from bankruptcy in 1991 because their problems today have existed that long ago. They stopped funding pension funds so that management could reap bonuses for ill begotten corporate profits.

Damning fact - GM cars sold for less than what they cost. GM profits were estimated at about $100 to $200 per vehicle. That was not legacy costs. That was bean counters doing what is necessary when the purpose of a company is its profits.

I am pretty sure from design to production is at least 5 years.

The US government paid for each company to design hybrids. Functioning electric cars existed in all three companies. Called the Prodigy, Precept, and ESX3. For 30 years, automakers would not innovate unless required by government regulation. So when George Jr came to power, all that innovation was quashed - no longer required. For 30 years, innovation appeared as an expense on the spread sheets.

Could these electric cars been marketed successfully? Yes. Toyota and Honda both proved that in spades. Success if government had not stopped forcing these automakers to innovate. But the new president was an MBA. Therefore hybrids - the auto industry's future - appeared in foreign products. American hybrids could not be successful because we elected an administration that routinely stifled innovation. Even had White House lawyers rewrite science papers.

Government should not have to force innovation. That is the underlying problem. Innovation was not possible in MBA dominated auto companies - which is why electric cars (innovation) were quashed.

Obviously, electric cars could easily be successful. But that meant management had to believe a company's purpose is its products. Therein lays the only threat to innovation in the American auto industry. Eliminate that problem and these vehicles easily could have been successful. It’s no longer even debatable.

The designs even existed in 2000. And the 70 horsepower per liter engine existed in 1975. It too was quashed for 30 years for the same reason. Not available in America until patriotic auto companies such as Toyota, Honda, Nissan, VW, etc brought it SUCCESSFULLY into America. Radial tire – 1948 and kept out of America until 1975. Different product. Exact same story.

The hybrids designs started in 1994(?) when Clinton gave them free money to design them. These were ready for moving into production in 1999 and demonstrated in 2000. But then I am only posting these facts for what - the ninth time?

Which is what the 70 horsepower per liter engine addressed in 1975. Or the stratified charge engine that existed in the early 1960s.

When did the stratified charge engine finally appear? In 1980 in the Hondas - that immediately became the #1 and #2 selling models in America - despite American automaker claims that it could not work.

When did the 70 hp/liter engine appear? In 1992 in Japanese and most European products - despite American automaker claims that is could not work.

It takes decades to upgrade all models to better technology. Let's look at MPG mileage. GM claimed they had 19 models that exceed 30 MPG. Then we consult honest sources. Not one single GM model comes close to 30 MPG. Not one. Of 40 GM models, the average MPG is ... 18.5. Some examples: Buick 16.7. Cadillac 16.7. Chevy 19.2

Average for 109 models from 16 import manufacturers is just under 21 MPG. Only Mercedes (that has no small cars) has MPG numbers equivalent to the low performance obsolete technology engines in GM. GM numbers are equal because GM also has small cars – Mercedes does not.

But then if you think GM is bad, worse is Chrysler. MPG for their 21 models is 17. Lower MPG because innovation is not found in GM or Chrysler models except when required by CAFE standards and EPA requirements.

Why no innovation? Ignoring that many Americans told them to keep stifling technology by purchasing such crap? Engineers were not permitted to innovate unless government regulations required it. Which is why GM, et al campaigned so vigorously to have SUVs liberated from innovation requirements.

GM has lower MPG numbers because GM has not been doing engine engineering for 30 years - except when required by government regulation.

Well what do you think classic?