Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner
First, DGthe3, I just want to say that I am responding to your post only, because you have my absolute respect. I know we've butt'd heads before, but in the time I have spent on this board, I have seen how well you treat others, and even those with whom you disagree. I always try to live by golden rule... "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And I believe you do as well.
 |
thank you
Quote:
As to my response... I first ask do you see the "conflict of interest" (ethics)? I deal with legal ethics all the time, so maybe it sticks out like a sore thumb to me.
Anyway, conflict of interest or not... the hearings preceded. What came of it? I believe they made the President of the company almost cry. But I ask, would anything be different today if the hearings didn't take place?
(I wanna mention now... I'm not a Toyota-hugger or whatever the last guy said. I do not drive one, and the only one I ever did... well, I'm glad its gone. But Toyota didn't become a household name by always sucking.)
DG, I want to ask you... does this not benefit GM and Chrysler? Please don't respond with, "yes, but it also helps Honda, Ford, etc." Why? Because absolutely none of those companies can MAKE the president of Toyota come to one of their hearings... only the the owner of GM & Chrysler can do such a thing. That's conflict of interest, that's ethics violation! (I wish I could make my competitors come to one of my hearings everytime they did something wrong)
|
I see how it can be perceived to be the result of a conflict of interest. But if its the right thing to do, does it matter if there is a conflict or not? I personally expect the same thing whether there was government ownership or not. There is no way to test this of course, and nothing can really be said to change anyones mind. It comes down to this: is it believable that the government would demand answers for neglecting to fix a design flaw which is known to be causing deaths? I say yes. For these hearings to be the result of a conflict of interest, the answer would have to be no, wouldn't it?
On to your other comments. As to benefiting GM and Chrysler, I can't deny that they will gain some sales. But these will be low. This is due to the (former) perception of Toyota and the current perception of those two. To the buyer who was previously convinced that Toyota=quality+safety, GM's styling and 'by the numbers' superiority aren't going to be big factors. And neither will Chrysler Corp's large RWD cars. Disuaded buyers will largely seek other brands who are now perceived to be safe and of high quality. Currently, people don't think of GM and Chrysler that way. Whether the should or not is a different argument all together.
I'll use an analogy from my own personal experience. My brother refereed some of my soccer games when I was a kid. When he called a hand ball against the other team, was it because of a conflict of interest? Or is it because a rule violation occurred? After all, the call
did help my team. I faced similar situations with my cousins daughter when I was a bit older. In one instance,
she had a hand ball. She looked at me in disbelief when I blew my whistle. The point with these stories is that officials should be trusted to do the right thing, regardless of who it benefits. And while I question the integrity of some politicians, I choose to believe that enough have a reasonable amount, most of the rest just go with the flow, and the remainder simply oppose everything.