Thomas Friedman Strikes Again!

[johnny smallblock]

I've attached today's opinion column by Friedman. I will note that I am a NY Times subscriber and a liberal, but I disagree with Friedman. I'm posting this because it's a relevant GM-related story and I politely ask that criticisms be focused at Friedman; whether someone is a liberal or not has nothing to do with their stance on this issue. I remind you what Bush said about GM making irrelevant vehicles.

You have to be a Times Select member to read the Opinion section, so since I it costs money, I attached the article in it's entirety.


Op-Ed Columnist
G.M. — Again
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: June 14, 2006

On May 31 I wrote a column accusing General Motors of acting irresponsibly by offering unlimited gasoline at $1.99 a gallon for one year to anyone who buys certain of its midsize sedans, big S.U.V.'s or gas-guzzling Hummers in California or Florida. At a time when we are at war in the Middle East, with an enemy who is indirectly financed by our energy purchases, it seems to me that every American, and every American company, has an obligation to reduce oil consumption. No one should be making a huge gas-guzzling Hummer, and no one should be driving one, and no one — certainly not G.M. — should be subsidizing people to drive them.

After the May 31 column appeared, G.M.'s vice president for global communications, Steven J. Harris, and his colleagues denounced my argument in a formal statement and on G.M.'s corporate blog. This is an important issue, so let me respond to their response.

To begin with, I would much prefer to see G.M. thriving and growing American jobs — not selling itself off, limb by limb. But as long as G.M. is giving away $1.99 gasoline for its gas guzzlers, I will be a harsh critic. Pardon me if — at a time when China is imposing higher mileage standards than America — I don't want to join the many congressmen and senators in drinking G.M.'s Kool-Aid and not demanding that it become the most fuel-efficient automaker in the world. If more people in Washington insisted that G.M. focus on building cars that could compete in a world of $3.99 gasoline, rather than creating an artificial universe of $1.99 gasoline, G.M. would not be worrying about bankruptcy today.

G.M. says that the cars chosen for its $1.99 gas giveaway were chosen because of "their outstanding fuel economy and great consumer appeal." It also says that G.M. makes more cars that get an E.P.A.-estimated 30 miles per gallon on the highway than any other company.

Fact: G.M. also sells more cars that get 9 to 11 m.p.g. — the Hummer — than any other company. And even though G.M. justified the $1.99 program as giving consumers a chance to drive some of its most fuel-efficient cars, it did not include its best-selling, most fuel-efficient model, the Chevy Aveo (35 m.p.g. highway), in the program, but did include seven gas-guzzling trucks. G.M. still does not have a family-friendly hybrid on the market (one is due this summer) — nine years after Toyota introduced the 45-m.p.g. Prius hybrid, which G.M. scoffed at at the time.

Stephanie Salter, a columnist writing in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, did a spoof about G.M.'s $1.99 gas giveaway by imagining what other less-than-healthy consumer companies might now do: "Today R.J. Reynolds Corp. announced a new 'smoke more/pay less' instant rebate program for most of its cigarette brands. Time-dated coupons will be included in every pack of RJR cigarettes. Tobacco consumers who collect 10 same-brand coupons in five days can redeem them for a pack costing $1. The only brands not covered by the coupon program are the company's cigarettes with very low tar and nicotine content."

Next, G.M.'s Harris asked: "How is offering a gas card that may be worth $1,000 any different or more sinister than the $2,000 cash rebate that Toyota's offering right now nationwide on its full-size S.U.V., the Sequoia?"

Fact: Reading that question you'd think that G.M. was giving away cheap gas instead of big S.U.V. rebates. The truth: We called G.M. dealers in California who said that under the new program they were authorized to offer $5,000 discounts on the 2006 Suburban and Tahoe S.U.V.'s — which are like the Sequoia — in addition to G.M.'s unlimited $1.99 gas for a year. I guess Mr. Harris just forgot that.

Yes, Toyota makes trucks and S.U.V.'s, just like G.M. I am not against either. Some people need them, others enjoy them. But I don't think we should be subsidizing gasoline so people who don't need them will buy them or buy the most gas-guzzling versions. G.M. says its full-size S.U.V.'s get better mileage than Toyota's. All I know is that Consumer Reports rates all size S.U.V.'s for fuel efficiency, reliability and performance. Toyota and Honda S.U.V.'s are its top picks in every size category.

Ah, says Mr. Harris, but we offer nine vehicles that can run on E85 ethanol-gas blends, and have made 1.9 million such cars and trucks. Toyota makes none. The truth: The Big Three U.S. automakers started making flex-fuel cars in the mid-1990's after they were given a shameful federal loophole.

As the Des Moines Register explained in an article on May 26: "The loophole works this way: A dual-fuel vehicle that can run on either gasoline or 85 percent ethanol, or E85, is credited with a much higher mileage rating than it really gets. That keeps the overall mileage of the cars and trucks that a company like Ford or General Motors makes in any given year within the government's mileage limits."

By agreeing to build flex-fuel vehicles credited with phony mileage, Detroit gets to make many more bigger, heavier gas guzzlers, the paper explained, "without having to pay fines for exceeding the federal mileage standards." For instance, the 2006 G.M.C. two-wheel-drive Yukon 1500 actually gets 15 m.p.g. city and 20 m.p.g. highway. But under this loophole it is rated as getting 33 miles per gallon for purposes of meeting the government's fleet fuel economy standards. "The Union of Concerned Scientists calculates that the loophole increased U.S. oil consumption by 80,000 barrels per day in 2005 alone," the paper said.

If G.M., Ford and Chrysler really care about saving oil and the environment, why exploit this loophole? And by the way, even though G.M. has made 1.9 million flex-fuel vehicles, it and the other automakers for a long time did little to inform customers that their cars could run on ethanol — because their real interest was the mileage loophole to make more big cars. Most people didn't know they were driving a flex-fuel car. "Until recently, the only way to tell was by checking the vehicle identification number," the paper noted. Recently, General Motors has put yellow gas caps on its dual-fuel vehicles to alert customers.

I'm not a car expert, so let me leave the last word to Automotive News, the industry's top trade magazine. Its June 5 editorial said: "General Motors' promotion that reimburses some buyers for gasoline purchases is ill-advised for an automaker that is trying to burnish its green image. The program should be dropped, not expanded. ... It's simply a subsidy for vehicles that burn a lot of gasoline. And it's one more example of G.M.'s tone deafness on environmental issues. ... Yes, G.M. can make vehicles that are as fuel efficient as anybody else's. But it acts as though its future depends on gas guzzlers."

Link: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/14...ewanted=2&_r=1

[johnny smallblock]

This is a much more toned down opinion piece. Nothing about Toyota taking over GM. Nothing about GM being a terrorist (though they are now equated with Big Tabacco - an analagy that is more appropriate the more you think about it).

Most things he says are things we have all complained about:
*GM ignoring cars to focus on SUVs
*GM pushing people into SUVs at the dealership level
*How GM doesn't have a 40mpg car
*How the rebates have to stop being the driving force that gets people into GM vehicles

Yet it's also pretty clear he is NOT a car guy:
*He ignores how many gallons are saved by people riding GM-made SUVs as opposed to the less efficient Japanese models
*He complains about the HUMMER, but ignores that (a) GM only sells a handful each year, and (b) they're discontinuing the H1 anyway
*He ignores the potential benefit of E85 - which is huge - and how Toyota has nothing that can run on E85

His opinion piece is an attack on GM, so we all get angry at it, but how much of what we are saying is just "kill the messenger"?

[Nocturn_Bird]

Originally Posted by johnny smallblock

G.M. says its full-size S.U.V.'s get better mileage than Toyota's. All I know is that Consumer Reports rates all size S.U.V.'s for fuel efficiency, reliability and performance.

Heres a thought, GET ACTUAL FREAKIN NUMBERS!. hes going to justify his knowledge of the MPG based on ANOTHER MAGAZINE?! WTF kind of journalism is this? Everyone knows that people over justify more expensive purchases and thus will overlook minute details so they don't admit that they have perhaps spent to much on a more expensive product. This has always been the problem with consumer reports and why it does't make a good evaluation of cars. Yet THIS is what hes using to base his facts on? Why not go to the EPA and find the actual numbers?

Sounds like somone is infact sipping on the toyota kool aid.

[Dynamo]

He also doesn't mention that the E85 credits are going away and instead of eliminating the costly content the automakers are keeping it and working on expanding the availability of E85.

He also doesn't mention that Toyota is doubling their capacity for full size trucks this year. GM's capacity is actually shrinking (OKC).

He also allows consumer reports to choose honda and toyotas based on the composite performance, reliability and fuel economy score but doesn't allow the actual consumer the same freedom in choosing based on fuel economy.

The Prius is family friendly? My family lives hours a way and I have to pack up my kid and dog to visit them. If by some act of god we fit in the car we wouldn't achieve the gas mileage on the freeway that we get in our Vibe.

[Nightshark]

I also love how he picks out the large rebates on 2006 Suburbans and Tahoe's, but does not mention those are end of life and have been replaced by much better, and more modern designs that are some of the more fuel efficient full-sized SUV's made.

[GraphixJunkie]

I don't know about the rest of you, but the last time I was in the market for a new car, I had predetermined needs that the vehicle had to meet. I was looking for a entry level 4 door car with a V6. Now, if when I went to the dealer looking for that car and I saw a rebate program for cheap gas on SUV's, I would not have thought twice about it. I was NOT shopping for an SUV because I did not need one. I think in most cases it is pretty unlikely for a customer to completely switch their vechicle of choice from a car to a SUV when at the dealer especially based just on a rebate. However, for those people that do actually need an SUV, it would be a good incentive to go make that purchase now instead of waiting or possibly buying another brand.
This guy is a moron. The next time he needs to take his family of 5, haul his boat, buy some furniture, or move, I guess he wont be asking his buddy with the Silverado or hitting up UHaul. He will just strap all his crap to his precious Prius and make 15 trips thus negating the whole thing. Congratulations for being an idiot.

[Sparta]

Originally Posted by johnny smallblock

All I know is that Consumer Reports rates all size S.U.V.'s for fuel efficiency, reliability and performance. Toyota and Honda S.U.V.'s are its top picks in every size category.

Bahahaha, quote of the year.

Originally Posted by johnny smallblock

I'm not a car expert

Clearly.

[tgagneguam]

I'm not so sure GM should respond to this.

It's quite clear that Mr. Friedman has adopted an opinion and is steadfast in that opinion. He seems quite engaged in promoting his agenda, be that good, bad, or indifferent. I don't think GM would ever please him, nor should the Corporation necessarily strive toward that goal.

If GM chooses to respond to this, I would predict that it would throw more gas on the fire, and in the end give GM more bad press. While it's important to correct eggregious errors, I think that trying to battle this man will become an issue of diminishing returns. It's simply not worth it. And he certainly doesn't seem to be worth the effort, honestly.

I received an e-mail today that nicely captures the flavor of engaging this man in conversation: "Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference." Usually left to their own devices, whacko far-left and far-right persons do well to discredit themselves.

[tmk50]

I'm wondering where I can get a 1997 Prius - he said they have been out for 9 years now.

[nsap]

He needs to give it up, stick to politics. Cars are not his thing. Basing fuel economy on what CR says is retarded at best. Go ask 2007 GMT-900 SUV owners what kind of gas mileage they are getting. Recent articles have customers saying they are getting EPA ratings on it. C&G got 17 MPG on a Yukon Denali they tested, and we all know they don't drive easy.

One thing is certain, he isn't a GM Kool-Aid drinker. Just a Toyota Kool-Aid drinker.

[mgescuro]

Well... let's see... COnsumer Reports does its ratings based on previous models and its trends. Seeing as the new Tahoe is brand new, there's no way to predict. So that stat is useless. Better yet, Friedman should have just gone to the company website or MotorTrend.com or Edmunds.com and just pull the numbers and cite it in his article. Good grief!! He is a reporter and knows how to do research!!!

Friedman does have a point though. GM has erected a smokescreen. GM does have more cars that go 30+ mpg. However, that's just because GM is so large. If you look at it closely though, GM also has ZERO cars that go over 40+mpg. But we here at GMI all know that already.

GM doesn't put incentives on teh Aveo becuase they have to pay extortion money to the UAW for every single Aveo sold. GM loses money on Aveo. GM needs to make money, so pushing the SUV's is the ONLY way to do it... even with a $5,000 rebate (which was surprising, to say teh least).

E85 should be heralded as a savior for GM. Maybe GM only did it to get around CAFE. Who knows. And who cares at this point. BUt like it or not... E85 is the way to break the stranglehold of oil addiction. Critics can point to inefficiencies in manufacturing, but when there's a will, there's a way. Even if E85 takes 2-5% of the market, that's enough to lessen demand, is it not??? Brazil is doing it. Sweden is doing it. There are examples elsewhere in the world of E85 successes. Oh... and guess what... GM Brazil and Saab are the the forerunners of E85 technology.

So ... Give GM a break.
They might be slow to realize things, but they already have the pieces in place. They just need to execute.

[A Bum In A Bus]

Friedman has an ego the size of Mt Rushmore. This is the fella that could not wait to go to war for oil, yet now he pushes an environmental agenda using lies and half-truths in an attempt to prop up an opinion that is not worth the paper on which it's written . Anyone familiar with the writings of Friedman are aware of his zeal for going off half-****************ed, meandering down paths he knows little about, and expressing judgments not substantiated by facts. As an environmentalist I resent his provocative statements thrown carelessly about like confetti at a birthday party, aimed at nothing more than shameless self-promotion.

[Aromanances]

This guy lives in a bubble. Does not try to find fact on his own but just regurgitates what others say in a way that develops and supports his views, quoting Consumer Reports as a final authority. Yes this in itself proves his own assertion he is not a car expert. At the end he states he is not a car expert, Very True, However his arrogance and self assumed mantel of great oracle to criticize GM is all he seems to need to spout off. This guy needs to get of his ass and do rather than complain about others that actually do. I hope GM does not let up on this fool. I Know Toyoty and its dealers have given away free gas to thoes who buy their gusseling trucks and I don't work for the New York Times. Why Can't he know it?

[Dynamo]

This is my problem with liberals, they think people are stupid and in capable of thinking for themselves.

So a guy walks in to get a Hybrid Vue Green Line which I believe is $23k or something like that. Then he finds out that he can get a $1000 bucks off, heck $6000 bucks off of a $47,000 vehicle that gets half the gas mileage. Well how the heck can he pass up that deal?

If a guy wants an SUV he's going to get one. If you give him 5k he'll just get leather or another DVD player on it.

[mikesright]

I think he needs to shut up, and talk about something he knows about. Here's the deal. Toyota wants to sell more trucks, so does Honda and Nissan. Instead of complaining about how they are building new factories and taking advantage in the marketplace, he attacks GM for selling them, even though GM continues to make more fuel-efficient vehicles in that segment. If he wants to attack any automaker right now about fuel consumption, talk about them too. Call them out about increasing fuel consumption!

Another thing, what will a rebate do? Encourage purchase of a vehicle, no different than providing capped gas prices, idiot!

Also, he calls out GM for saying that it sells more fuel-efficient cars than anyone else, and having more gas-guzzlers than anyone else. Makes sense, when you think that GM has more brands than anyone else, and is the biggest automaker, right. In addition, he talks about none of the technologies that GM is putting across the lineup, faster than Toyota is moving, to save gas. Active Fuel Management, Direct Fuel Injection, Six-Speed transmissions, VVT, and two types of Hybrid systems, on top of new technology to take better advantage of E85 and E100, which are REAL solutions that GM is doing right now, and taking advantage of! Ethanol is a way around regulatations, sure, because it is a solution, apparently backed by both parties, that can bridge the gap between gasoline and the technology GM is leading the way on, HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS!!! He ignores or tries to downplay some of the most smart ways to save fuel in all of the history of the internal combustion engine, that GM isn't waiting on now!!! GM's not deaf, they're leading the way!

On top of all of this, he gives kudos to Toyota for being longsighted and developing the Prius, which was a good decision by Toyota. Who came up with the general idea (and a pracical model)...first? GM with the EV1, was available BEFORE the Prius!

STOP DRINKING KOOL-AID, you ****************ing fool!!!