Find Reviews by Make:
Did the EPA bluff its way into getting automakers to agree to ambitious fuel efficiency targets?
- The EPA proposed what they thought were a series of unrealistic fuel economy targets – and got them.
- Volvo will build a plant in the United States.
- Honda builds its 7 millionth car in Canada.
- GM’s closure of the Oshawa plant would have a devastating effect on Ontario’s economy.
- CARB considers a push for plug-in hybrids.
12 Comments on “While You Were Sleeping: March 30th, 2015...”
Read all comments
I’m more interested in the first story, but the second story is interesting, Volvos sales are so minuscule it’s hard not to imagine this is more for Future-proofing Geely.
It’s Volvo’s last gasp in the US market, but possibly Geely’s first toehold for building Chinese cars in the US.
$500 million doesn’t sound like enough money to build a car plant.
In any case, if they can’t drop prices, improve quality, and expand the lineup, this plant will only slow their demise.
Also, if they’re building the plant to reduce shipping costs, how do they expect to export these vehicles to other markets? Are non-US customers willing to pay more?
No Chinese cars , it is part of the rebuilding of Volvo by Geely. They want cheaper Labour cost and a place to export Volvo’s Globally
Re: Oshawa.
I thought the heart of the problem was the strong Canadian dollar making it expensive to manufacture there, but Chrysler seems to be staying in Windsor and Ford in Oakville.
Building cars in Oshawa goes back before General Motors. McLaughlin was an independent company before they were absorbed by GM.
Nice timing …
The Canadian dollar has just fallen from $1USD to less than $0.8USD.
Re: EPA
Is it the role of government agencies to lie to businesses as a negotiating tactic? Shouldn’t government agencies like the EPA be, you know, honest?
If you are negotiating with someone, anyone, regardless of whether it is an individual or an institution, you expect them to first propose something that is beyond what they will actually accept.
That’s negotiation 101.
I love to dicker, but the only time I’ve ever been in a negotiation that started with a ridiculous offer was in the shuk in the old city of Jerusalem. Hardly any real negotiation starts with an unreasonable offer.
When I’m negotiating with a government in the United States, I expect them to act in the public’s best interest, not like Les Gold trying to buy some Detroit Tigers memorabilia.
People are people but government, at least in the U.S., is different, or should be.
Business did not start with a reasonable proposal in this debate. If government does, then the outcome will be slanted toward business.
I have no problem with the government staking out an aggressive negotiating position on the public’s behalf when they are facing giant multinationals with fleets of $1000/hour lawyers across the table.
Ronnie, I agree.
“When I’m negotiating with a government in the United States, I expect them to act in the public’s best interest”
It’s in the best interest of ALL the people to get the most from a negotiation. It’s only in the best interest of auto mfr shareholders to do less.
“People are people but government, at least in the U.S., is different, or should be.”
The govt is our collective representative. By what magic does it become more virtuous or scrupulous than the people? And if it IS more so, why should it negotiate terms instead of dictate them?
Twenty billion dollars a year in additional regulatory costs for the industry will mean fewer new cars and fewer jobs. That isn’t good for the public that I care about.