Unintended Consequences

A new survey from Synovate Motoresearch says that only a third of those surveyed would consider buying a domestic automotive product. That's down from the not-so Big Three's current market share of 47%. Yikes.

The poll was taken earlier this month after Detroit bigwigs Nardelli, Mullaly and Waggoner parachuted into Washington with their tale of woe.

Synovate says they're seeing consumer opposition to the auto industry bailout not going down but going up. This is the opposite of what you'd expect after two months of incessant media coverage and scare tactics telling us that letting Ford, GM or Chrysler fail would result in a second Great Depression.

It seems to me to be the law of unintended consequences: When the three car CEOs flew to Capitol Hill on private jets (they couldn't even jet pool) the die was cast.

Even Rick Waggoner slumming it the second time around in his hybrid Escalade couldn't change the image in the mind of the American public of pampered CEOs for whom life will go on very nicely whether they get your money or not.

Their problem is that the louder they cry poor mouth the less anyone wants to do business with them. Why should I put tax money down on a bad bet? And why should I buy a Ford, Chevrolet or Chrysler if the company may be out of business in 9 months? The law of unintended consequences.

For the record I own and drive two domestic products: a full-size pickup truck and a spiffy little convertible. They're ove ten years old. Never had lick of trouble with either one of them. Great vehicles. Love 'em. I suspect most owners feel the same way about their domestics.

But apparently what the Big Three have done in their assault on the taxpayers is to convince their most loyal customers that putting their money on Detroit is a sucker's bet.

Just thought you might like to know.