Pundits predict future of the U.S. auto industry
Marty Bernstein, contributing editor for the American International Automobile Dealers trade organization, fired up the old rolodex and quizzed a wide range of folks who spend their days trying to anticipate future trends in the U.S. auto industry, asking what the industry will look like in 2011. Their thoughts make interesting reading.Some highlights:
- international brands will continue to gain market share in the U.S.
- the U.S. market will become more like Europe - many brands, no really dominant players
- biofuels will be important in the U.S., but tariffs and regulations cloud the crystal ball
[Source: AIADA]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Glenn A. 3:31PM (6/16/2006)
Well unless we (as in humanity) gain some self-control over "wants" instead of "needs" the auto industry is going to be the LAST of our concerns.
Got this out of www.evworld.com - have a read.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/pb2ch4.pdf
Reply
Paul 3:41PM (6/16/2006)
Man this cloud of smug is oppressive in here.
Reply
Joe Z 3:42PM (6/16/2006)
Glenn A, for THE LOVE OF GOD will you brainwashed liberal chicken-littles please go get your pansy asses to some enviro-blogs? Or maybe a blog for those of you who admire pandering politicians. By the way, if you're going to waste our time with science fiction, could you please give a shout-out to Captain Pickard next time? This you see is autoblog.com where like it or not, most of us enjoy burning fossil fuels as a passion.
And as to the article, we've heard the Euro-market comparos before, sound credible to me. I do see Hyundai potentially slowing Toyota a bit.
Reply
PJ 4:14PM (6/16/2006)
I don't see how there isn't room for opinions like Glenn's--especially since he didn't even post a rant himself (hint, hint). He only provided a link.
I also get tired of the easy, convenient dismissal of environmental concerns as "sissy." I personally see no connection--it's just easier to throw around playground taunts than it is to form an opinion about a complex issue.
I love driving more than most activities, but if I could do it without burning fossil fuels, I'd love it even more. It's the driving, not the consuming, that (I assume) most enthusiasts are passionate about. Otherwise, we could just run our central heat on "max" all day long to get our kicks.
Er... what was I saying about rants? Oops. I do agree that the Hyundai group is going to present a major thorn in Toyota's side in the coming decades. Public perception--and associated factors like resale value--is really their biggest obstacle at this point.
Reply
Joe Z 4:23PM (6/16/2006)
PJ- my response to Glenn was sarcastic frustration, not taunting. (For the record, Glenn kicked MY butt on the playground.) I do have a problem with drive-by links where people waste our time with their causes. I do not see the relevance to predicting the future of the auto industry to the doom of the planet. Maybe those truly buying all of the global warming hype should take Steven Hawking on his advice.
Reply
PJ 4:36PM (6/16/2006)
I see your point about the links, Joe, for sure. I should have clarified, too, that I was making a blanket statement about the general "sissification" of environmental concerns by those who don't agree with them. I wasn't trying to blast your single comment.
Reply
Richard Warren 4:50PM (6/16/2006)
#4 Agree with most of your statements. When I was growing up in the 50's (you know the stage coach days)an elderly neighbor told me, you know son, it's not what we do that will harm us, it's what we don't do, and the biggest problem we will face is very simple, over population. That was when the US had about a 100 million people, now we are pushing 250 million? Think about it, lets just say 50 million less cars on the road, not just less fuel, less total resources used.
Then think about the rest of the world and it's growth. Older I get the more his comments make sense.
Reply
Brian 4:53PM (6/16/2006)
Joe,
Re-read your post and seriously ask yourself, "Who's brainwashed?"
It never ceases to amaze me; Americans who feel the need to identify with one of our two dominant parties have totally lost touch with what both "conservative" and "liberal" mean. They willingly pigeonhole themselves by a label painted with so broad a brush, that both parties' dogs are wagged by the extremists’' tails.
When did it start that in order to be a Republican you had be an anti-environmental goon, laden with vitriol when anyone brings up global warming? The vast majority of learned scientists with far purer data and superior knowledge on the subject than you and I all agree that it's real, not something made-up by those pinko "liberal, tax-and-spend" Democrats. Tell me this; do you think Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal? I didn't think so. Yet he is regarded as one of the most strident environmentalists of his time.
Since when did being a Democrat mean you have to drive a Prius, enjoy the smell of your own farts and give credence to the mindless and smug, half-informed ramblings of Streisand and Clooney - just because their status comes with a podium and a TV camera? Your label of "pansy-ass liberal" has some hollow ring of truth since they let the conservatives turn "liberal" into a bad word - it sure as hell wasn't during the New Deal (which had our country on the road to economic recovery before WWII came along).
Since when did being a Republican mean you had to be both socially AND fiscally conservative? Since when did being a Democrat mean you had to be both socially and fiscally liberal?
There are people in this country that are very powerful because they keep us divided against one-another. Both of these political parties are the greatest disease this country has. They have manipulated the masses to jump on one side or the other of an imaginary political line, only to throw mudd to those one the other side in the form of the latest spurious sound bites coming out the mouths of their side's leaders (who only care about them every two years).
Think with your own brains, my friends. Read more. Make up your own minds. Resist the superficial political mcnuggets you hear and, for God's sake, don't believe ANYTHING you see/read in a political ad from anyone. We need a revolution of thought in this country. Most of all, we need to remember that we're on the same side.
ALL of this could be fixed in one fell swoop. How? Publicly-funded elections. If American taxpayers fund the election of their leaders directly (with no possibility of private contribution) our government will once again belong to us. Right now it belongs to the highest bidder.
Reply
MikeInNC 5:28PM (6/16/2006)
Brian, throw in term limits and no parties and you may have smoething. I do think Joe was just blowing off some steam but I can see both arguments. A lot of great minds have also said that, although they think Global Warming may be happening, it's highly doubtful humans have anythign to do with it (as long as we are thinking for ourselves, I don't want to drink anyone's kool-aid and I bet you don't either. Remember, 20 years ago the covers of all the major mags were filled with doom and gloom about global cooling and everyone who didn't agree was a dolt.
Reply
Ryan 6:16PM (6/16/2006)
"it's what we don't do, and the biggest problem we will face is very simple, over population."
Well Uncle Sam sure does not like you!!!
He wants as many good little taxpayers as possible!!!
Reply
CW 6:23PM (6/16/2006)
Yes, I don't think the World can handle this overpopulation. My professor thinks the World can't even hold 3 billion people on *SUSTAINABLE* resources. Now we're pushing 7 billion. Yikes Richard. When will the crash begin. :(
Reply
Ryan 6:31PM (6/16/2006)
"ALL of this could be fixed in one fell swoop. How? Publicly-funded elections. If American taxpayers fund the election of their leaders directly (with no possibility of private contribution) our government will once again belong to us. Right now it belongs to the highest bidder."
Perfectly stated...
This really sucks that politics is TRENDY. I grew up with a hardcore alcoholic abusive dad that had/has an obsession with Rush, hated liberals. He was a rebublican and an atheist. My point being I'm so sick of politics. The one thing he taught me though is to be classy and never bring up: 1.) Your income, politics and religion.
Let's move on and talk cars, because Americans love civil war.
Q.) Is it possible for US citizens to be united and somewhat work with each other?
Well, I'm 24, I have huge faith in that one day we might be able to. But what gets grown men to bicker like hens?! Politics.
Reply
Richard Warren 6:49PM (6/16/2006)
We actually have the best politicians money can buy. Ever think about "the market decides?" It has spoken, the highest paid, biggest paid pork barrel guys win just about everytime.
Count me in on the public funded elections.
Reply
Frank 10:15PM (6/16/2006)
Publicly funded elections? No thank you. I don't need any other taxes. But I will say that campaign finance is messed up, especially since McCain/Feingold was passed which in my opinion is unconstitutional (but then so is Keylo(sp?) case where the government can take your private property and give it to another private everterprise because they will develop it and pay more taxes on it).
I have a better idea. Full disclosure. You can give as much as you want - no limit. But there should be a source of information that tells you exactly who and exactly what organizations gave to a candidate and exactly how much and when. Then we the voters can question them on it. If you're liberal and you know your politicians taking money from the NRA or Right to Life you can call em on it. If your conservative and he/she is taking donations from Planned Parenthood or the teachers union, the same thing.
Right now we can't know for sure who our politicians are beholden to. How much money is this George Sorros guy giving to MoveOn.org and the Dems? How much money are the oil companies giving to the Rebublicans (and Democrats too, since they give to whoever they think will see things their way)?
Reply
Glenn A. 8:01AM (6/17/2006)
Wow, Brian, very well said. Anyone who's seen my scribblings knows I'm a Constitutionalist (assuming you could pidgeon-hole me into political a party, that is) and most certainly not one of the two "send us your money so we can lordoverya" parties.
Nor can I be pidgeon-holed because I do own a Prius, or wonder out loud whether we're all screwed because the CO2 is higher than at any time since the earth began.
I love cars. I love the human race. I love life. Not necessarily in that order. I'd like to see cars AND humans (even grandchildren and great-grandchildren) in the distant future. On earth, too.
Since the nearest star system is a binary system which would take thousands of years to get to (with no guarantee that there are any earth-like planets there).
I'm for free choice, with sensible limitations.
Most all of us might agree that certain activities should be (and are) banned. Murder, bestiality, car theft for three random samples.
At what point do we actually have to say (or do we ever say) collectively - we need to realize that absolute freedom of choice regarding cars, SUVs and trucks is liable to kill us all, therefore we must collectively have some sense of stewardship? (Look it up in the dictionary if you don't know what it means).
As for publicly funded elections - wow, what a great idea. Even though it flies against the Consititution Party (which says - we won't take funds from the government for our elections because then, people with opposing viewpoints are unwillingly providing monies for a belief system they do not adhere to). I think it is time for even the Constitutionalists to say "ok, the funds are all provided on an equal basis to the parties, on the basis that we all (as citizens and taxpayers) agree that our Republican form of government and freely held elections is a benefit to all." (Remember, we are NOT a democracy - though brainiac current politicians always use that term - duh). A democracy would mean we'd vote for everything directly - shall we go to war - should a certain road in Topeka be paved - instead of electing representatives to vote on our behalf. (OK we pretty much all know that no longer is the case, but that's hopefully fix-able if we can elect representatives of the average Joes and Janes instead of the richest "lordsoverus" elitest people).
With publicly funded elections, all parties within a majority of states - such as Libertarian, Constitution Party, Reform Party, Democratic Party and Republican Party would all be funded equally. This would even the playing field a bit, to say the least. It would also give us a way out of the current impasse of the twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum parties.
There are a lot of intelligent guys and gals on this autoblog, and I'm happy to have these usually constructive, illuminating and thought provoking discussions about cars, life, stewardship, and the thing that we call politics, even.
I had no idea that I would open up such an interesting topic with something I tossed into autoblog as I was getting ready to leave work. But I'm glad it made us all think.
By the way, my father was very forward looking - he and my mom had two children in the 50's when large families were still the norm - I and my wife had two children. I learned a lot from my dad. Happy fathers day, dad. Ryan, I'm very sorry that your dad was abusive and alcoholic. Since my family and I went to vacation in the UK and watched how alcohol and drunkeness is so prevalent there, I've completely gone tea-total (not that I ever drank much anyway). Ironically, my dad said to me many times "alcohol was the greatest thing mankind ever invented - then the damn fools went and drank it." (He advocates it for medicinal purposes - on the skin - and motor fuel).
Reply
GhostDoggy 8:57AM (6/17/2006)
Business is business. I would not hold it against GM, Ford, or Chrysler (ahem, Diamler-Chrysler) to put some of their money into buying large amounts of stock in foreign companies like Toyota, Hyundai, or even Honda.
Reply
MikeInNC 9:10AM (6/17/2006)
THanks for the thoughts Glenn. I think the term for our form of government is Democratic Republic. It's not perfect but, it's actually pretty good. I think, we as citezens just need to pay a little bit more attention to who we nominate. Problem is, we all don't participate until the nominations are made. For the most part, only the party zealots vote in the process to weed all those candidates down to one for each party. By that time, we're assured of having closest to the most extreme two candidates that extremists money can buy.
I'm personally not a big fan of public funded elections. I do really like the notion of full disclosure though.
A lot of people don't want term limits but, to me, it's the only way to get rid of career politicians and get some statesmen in office who are looking to do some actual good for the country instead of constantly working to get re-elected.
Reply
China Law Blog 5:04PM (6/17/2006)
The Zarqawi article to which you cite is right. The talk about the U.S.'s downfall is neither new nor on target.
Reply
John 2:09PM (6/19/2006)
George Washingtion in his Farewell Address warned of the dangers of poltical parties.
Reply