Even among the wreckage of GM and Chrysler, Porsche and others, Ford still does not get it.
The media for the entire first week of this month was filled with stories on the GM bankruptcy, with the cover of The Economist entitled "Detroitosaurus wrecks." But the biggest story that week was Ford, not GM.
But first, let's rehash the media's insistence that cars are still the future of transportation. The Economist reported, "The car industry is no dinosaur. GM's demise should not be read as a harbinger of doom for the car industry." (Yes it should).
And a NY Times reporter wrote that no one could have predicted GM's desperate troubles a few years ago (Yes, we did in 2003. Hey NYT, look this way, over here....)
Now back (literally and fiscally) to Ford. So the week of GM's bankruptcy filing, Ford announced that it would increase production, producing basically the same number of cars but doubling the number of F150 trucks. Yes, those gas guzzling, low mileage, big polluting monsters that Gen Y is sure to hate.
Kinda easy to see where this will take Ford - - down. Photo: We're not sure what Ford is thinking, but we do know it involves pink hats.
Yes, people who live in rural areas do drive trucks - and for a very good reason. My last trip to town, I come home with 50 lbs of dog food, 50 lbs of goat food, 40 lbs of cat food, 30 lbs of cat litter, 2 sheets of plywood, 1 bundle of shingles, 2 10' downspouts, 8 tomato cages and 20 or so grocery bags. There are no trains where I live, and hauling all that 7 miles down a gravel road on a bike just won't work!
Posted by: Rebel | June 22, 2009 at 01:32 PM
In a way, it kind of makes sense that Ford would up production of trucks. If we assume that most urban dwellers will ride mass transit, then that only leaves the rural dwellers to drive cars. And what do people who live in rural areas drive? Trucks.
Posted by: Suzanne | June 16, 2009 at 07:05 AM