FCA/Renault merger

[Mike66Chryslers]

Both Ghosn and Marchionne were outsized figures in the industry. I think it's interesting that, shortly after both were removed from the picture, the companies that they built considered merging.

Marchionne was very vocal about wanting to find a partner for FCA. Too vocal IMO because he was starting to sound desperate. Perhaps joining forces with Renault-Nissan would be a win-win, but it was likely not even an option before. Neither man would've been okay with ceding the CEO position.

Of course, Marchionne had been planning to retire in 2019 anyhow, so maybe there were other reasons that he never made an overture to Renault-Nissan?

 

[Fratzog]

An interesting development. I've never been a fan of increasing globalisation isince it always seems that the consumer and workers get the short end of the stick. It also makes me wonder if FCA will ever get off the mark on EVs.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

Wasn't PRV part of the same consortium that brought in all of those fuel efficient mid-range diesel trucks, Magirus and Mack that were sold in the late '70's that promptly blew up all over the freeways? The Volvo, Mack and Magirus all shared the same cab and chassis, Volvo used their own diesel engine the TD60 which held up fairly well. The Mack used Peugeot and Renault diesels that were a POS. Not sure which engine was in the Magirus, but it was the worst of the three. One of the local Garbage companies here traded in their White Compacts on a fleet of the Magirus trucks and had to replace them all after about two years because they could not keep them running.

Dave

Try to find a brake drum for one of those.

 

[Mike66Chryslers]

An interesting development. I've never been a fan of increasing globalisation isince it always seems that the consumer and workers get the short end of the stick. It also makes me wonder if FCA will ever get off the mark on EVs.

How does the consumer get the short end of the stick from globalization? For the most part, the consumer benefits from it. Lower cost of goods is the obvious example. We also take for granted today that we can get fresh fruit and vegetables in the grocery store at any time of year, not just when they are in-season locally.

Globalization of trade is also one of the major reasons that we have had relative peace since the end of WWII. People tend to not go to war with their customers. (The other reason being the nuclear arms race, which meant a hot war between superpowers would be a lose-lose scenario.)

 

[1978 NYB]

I just heard on the news that Chrysler just backed out of the Renault merger.

 

[Dobalovr]

I just heard on the news that Chrysler just backed out of the Renault merger.

See post #37 Bob

 

[Fratzog]

How does the consumer get the short end of the stick from globalization?

When you need to work 3 PT Mc'jobs and make less than when you worked in the factory that pulled up stakes and moved to Mexico. Globalization has done nothing for buying power.

we have had relative peace since the end of WWII. People tend to not go to war with their customers.

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria are just a few of the skirmishes the US and allies have overtly engaged in. Also you are failing to distinguish between free and fair trade. The tendency not to get into WW3 has more to do with MAD than trade.

 

[1978 NYB]

See post #37 Bob

Dang!

 

[Mike66Chryslers]

When you need to work 3 PT Mc'jobs and make less than when you worked in the factory that pulled up stakes and moved to Mexico. Globalization has done nothing for buying power.
View attachment 291964

First, I would say you are conflating consumer with worker. I did not dispute your point about workers displaced from jobs because their skills are no longer required. There are no easy answers for that problem, but there are numerous causes for it, and globalization is only one of them.

Also, purchasing power is tricky to nail down. That graph will not take into account increases in purchasing power due to advances in technology. You can buy a plebian sedan that has comparable performance to a 60's muscle car yet returns excellent fuel economy and continues to perform well for 10+ years with less maintenance than 60's cars did. You can buy a cellphone which is packed with technologies which had no equivalent 50 years ago, yet now fits in your pocket. There are new vaccines and medications which can combat disease to greatly extend your life. You could not purchase comparable things for ANY amount of money 50 years ago.

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria are just a few of the skirmishes the US and allies have overtly engaged in. Also you are failing to distinguish between free and fair trade. The tendency not to get into WW3 has more to do with MAD than trade.

I did say RELATIVE peace. The total number of people killed in wars in the post-WW2 period is very small compared to the number killed in both world wars combined. Up to WW2, wars were common and often used to settle disputes, even among societies which were fairly educated and affluent. This was considered normal.

I don't feel I need to distinguish between free and fair trade. That is a "red herring" partisan argument designed to bolster the case for ripping up existing trade agreements. When governments enter into trade agreements, they believe at that time that they are entering into a fair agreement, or they wouldn't do it in the first place. Negotiators would not enter into trade agreements where they would knowingly put their country at an economic disadvantage as a result.

 

[70bigblockdodge]

First, I would say you are conflating consumer with worker. I did not dispute your point about workers displaced from jobs because their skills are no longer required. There are no easy answers for that problem, but there are numerous causes for it, and globalization is only one of them

Corporate greed. Easy answer.

Also, purchasing power is tricky to nail down. That graph will not take into account increases in purchasing power due to advances in technology. You can buy a plebian sedan that has comparable performance to a 60's muscle car yet returns excellent fuel economy and continues to perform well for 10+ years with less maintenance than 60's cars did. You can buy a cellphone which is packed with technologies which had no equivalent 50 years ago, yet now fits in your pocket. There are new vaccines and medications which can combat disease to greatly extend your life. You could not purchase comparable things for ANY amount of money 50 years ago.

This is consumer based and driven technology, it's roots may not be consumer based, but that's where the money was so it got driven in that direction.
Answer to first part creates a weakened consumer buying power which forces more to look for cheaper ways to produce.
WW1 changed warfare due to mechanizing it rather than foot soldiers and calvary, with rules of engagement. So rather than I have this many troops and calvary, it became I have X number of tanks, guns, mortors and I can put it right between your eyes instead of throwing a lead ball across a field and only knowing for sure that it will probably go the direction I pointed it.
I cannot agree that globalization is seen as a great savior by corps. or government, it's only all about the $$$$