Volkswagen America: Sales Are Up in October 2015 Over October 2014
If you needed proof that American consumers really don’t care a whit about the ethical standards of the vendors from which they buy their stuff, here’s further assurance. The month after it became clear that Volkswagen built and sold 11 million vehicles that were designed to short-circuit emissions standards tests, thus defrauding that many customers, while cheating the other 7 billion people on our planet out of our respiratory health by pumping tons of NOx into the air we breathe, we upped our consumption of their vehicles.
Though I try to look for a silver lining in the crap like this I come across all day long, I have to say that this one stretches my capacity for optimism. I honestly thought that most people would join me in saying: No. I don’t want to own a product made by people who would do something like that.** Now I realize I’m more-or-less alone in that position.
I wonder: What would it have taken to push the common American across the line? Cars coming from ISIS Motors? Who knows? They may be opening up a dealership near you with attractive rebates and low interest rates for buyers with good credit.
** This, btw, is verbatim what I told the general manager of the dealership from which I bought my 2009 Jetta TDI, which purchase decision I made solely on the emissions characteristics VW claimed. The GM asked how he could help win back VW’s “loyal customers,” to which I responded, “Seriously? You don’t HAVE any loyal customers. You have 11 million furious ex-customers, and you need to deal with the rest of the world’s population who hates VW’s guts as well.” Needless to say, it was a very short talk.
Well ISIS makes their money by selling oil and that doesn’t seem to be motivating anybody to stop using it.
The Saudi’s make their money by selling oil and they sponsor terrorism and that doesn’t seem to be motivating anybody to stop using it.
The Iranian’s make money selling oil and they are using that money to work on their nuclear program and they sponsor terrorism and that doesn’t seem to be motivating anybody to stop using it.
Yeah I know that “alone” feeling.
Brian
I wrote this before November’s sales figures were released, which, I’m happy to report, are down almost 25%. That’s better news.
Yes it is better news – faith in humanity reinforced. 🙂
To a degree…. 🙂
It takes time for word to get out. But this is not unusual: (See also that the state department is now asking Toyota why most of the vehicles observed in ISIS caravans are made by Toyota or the Budweiser Beer that “removes no from your vocabulary for the night:” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/28/bud-light-label/26532085/ ) Corporations can be expected to pursue profits up until the time when those profits are hurt by their actions. I don’t think there is a lot of morality there. No one at any of these companies seemed to say that we should not do something because it is not right. Rather they say let’s do it because we can. Over time corporations have been given ever increasing power without a commensurate level of responsibility. This is a perfect argument for the need of regulation and the limitation of corporate power.
But the deeper problem is with the corporation model. They are essentially imperfect immortal gods that we created at alters of greed. Morality is not a part of their corporate calculations and so like pollution it is a kind of externality. If we somehow decided that corporations should serve the greater good (as they once did: a highly recommended read: http://economicsonlinetutor.com/corporations-and-the-public-interest ) as well at their stockholder profits or more likely took some lesson from social media and required stockholders to vote on and be accountable for many more corporate decisions then perhaps this would effect a change.
Rather we tend to deal with what confronts us rather that what we assume we can’t change. If a particular dealership was source of deception it would become a pariah of both the buying public and the government.
@ Breath on the Wind
” that the state department is now asking Toyota why most of the vehicles observed in ISIS caravans are made by Toyota ” .
Well, that really shows how paranoid and absurd the US State Department has become ! Bonnie and Clyde’s favorite vehicle was the newly released Ford V8, do you think Ford designed the car for them in mind? Or that Clyde Barrow was a regular purchaser at Ford dealerships ?
Toyota pick up, are the most popular vehicles in the Middle East because of their well deserved reputation for reliability . Toyota are also the most identifiable because of the large logo on the rear panel.
In a way, it’s the final irony for ISIL and all Islamic fundamentalists that to survive and fight their self-proclaimed Jihad, they must rely on the technology of the civilizations they are trying to destroy.
Perhaps VW customers think that other car manufacturers are just as bad and that VW was the one that happened to be caught.
Way back in the early 1970s I decided never again to buy a car made by VW, Audi, or Porsche; they are all made by the same company. My 1971 Porsche 914 I had had so many problems I could have written a book about it and the two Porsche dealers in Minneapolis / St. Paul were totally uncooperative. They were also uncooperative about problems with other Porsche models, so it wasn’t just because I had the least expensive model. In the 1980s, all three cars made by that same manufacturer had the same door lock defect which made it unusually easy to break into the cars. The defect existed for several consecutive years because the company didn’t bother to correct it promptly when it was discovered.
My first new car was a 1964 VW. It, and subsequent Beetle models, had trouble with out of round break drums and the company did not bother to correct the problem.
Corporation culture commonly persists for generations. That seems to be the case for VW so there is no reason to expect it to change soon. The emissions problem is only the latest and most publicized problem.
@ freggersjr
A 1967 Kombi Van in good condition recently sold at auction for $158,000 !
When I see the sign that says “We’re sorry we were caught”, am I missing something in the translation from German to English? All criminals are sorry they are caught, it’s when there’s sorrow for the crime, modified behavior for good, and compensation, forgiveness can begin. Natzi’s who ran concentration camps were sorry too, but only sorry they were caught.
This is a phenomenon that was new to me too; it’s called “brandalism.” It’s publicity that damages a brand that bears a specious resemblance to a campaign the company might have run itself.
Craig;
It seems to me that I recently read that VW proposed a simple fix for the 1.6 and 1.8, change the delivery of the filtered air to the mass air flow gizmo $10 and 30 minutes declared by the German federation as an acceptable fix.
Additionally, the fix for the commercial 2.0 liter is a simple chip flash – no cost, 30 minutes, also declared acceptable by the German federation. I don’t know how their standards compare the the criminal enterprise CARB or the EPA, I don’t know how toxic nitrogen oxide is either. I do know the crazies want to tax my breath – everything else, anything else from this pack is suspect.
I have a 2013 Passat TDI – best car I have ever owned. If the locals change the rule an require me to sniff my tailpipe, maybe I’ll move away. Maybe I’ll convert it to a very cool farm vehicle. Maybe I convert to an all electric. The last thing i will do is pitch a fit and cry “poor-poor pitiful me.”
I have watched the house hearings, listening to a New York demonrat telling the Head of the EPA that “if she don’t got no sticka (sic), she get a fine and the EPA should park them cars and fine them peoples!”
The EPA director pointed out that he approved those cars and he is at least a year from a preliminary plan to deal with this.
I have always maintained that VW is going to IMPROVE the situation and not fold their tent. Their sales are off in an amout equal to the number of diesels not selling. Who knows, maybe they will shift to hybrids or electrics like Porsche and Mercedes. The S550 plug-in hybrid is an AWESOME car.
FYI – Between the Dealer and Corporate, we have collected $1,100 cash and have in writing that taking the cash does NOT exempt us from any future litigation for dimished value, etc.
Merry Christmas!
Craig,
It’s blatantly obvious that the level of intentionally deceptive conduct by some VW engineers and management personnel was criminally reprehensible and incredibly stupid.
But your overreaction is equally unhelpful. VW is one of the worlds largest corporations, employing millions of people and providing the economic destiny of many more. None of these people were responsible for the behavior of a comparatively very small number of employees.
Your local dealer had no part in the deception. VW’s shareholders and supply chain were also innocent victims. Do you really believe your local dealer influenced the decision made by engineers in Wolfsburg, Germany ? Do you really believe your aggressive and unkind abuse of this completely powerless individual, helped the situation ? Or in your self-righteous anger did you join those who believe that a car dealer is fair game to be dehumanized and therefore acceptable as a target for abuse ?
How far can you extend “collective’ responsibility” before it becomes just a mindless of campaign of hatred victimizing the guilty along with the innocent ?
I realize that VW was the chosen vehicle and symbol of the old 60’s Left, and much of it’s success was built on it’s seemingly cool anti-corporate anti-capitalist image. (That was always an illusion, largely a product of the brilliant advertising campaign created by the Manhattan advertising agency, Doyle Dane Bernbach).
But none of that is really relevant. Surely what’s really is important is punishing those individuals responsible, and providing an adequate example of deterrent to others. How would destroying VW help ?
It certainly wouldn’t help all those VW owners needing their vehicles fixed, nor would it assist all those VW employees who worked hard over many decades to produce better vehicles. No one benefits from a sanctimonious pogrom that punishes the innocent along with the guilty.
I see some merit to your argument but speaking strictly for myself:
I find it laughable when I read that this criminal activity appears to be the work of two individuals at VW (at the same time we’re learning that this malfeasance applies to their gasoline-powered as well as diesel vehicles).
I’m sure no dealers were involved in the crime, and I feel deeply sorry for their loss. I hope they sue and recover huge damages from VW; they certainly deserve to. In fact, they were damaged far more greatly than any individual owner. At the same time, if I were in that position, I’d drop my VW franchise like a hot rock. I would no more promote a product from those people than I’d sell heroin to school kids. You don’t have to tell me that I’m over-reacting; I know I’m far more amped up about this than most people.
It’s not like I’ve never done anything wrong, but this is so over the top that I believe people of conscience should join me in saying: “Pay me what you owe me, and then go away, think about it, reorganize, regroup, and come up with a new company that is clearly managed differently than the old criminal enterprise. We’ll talk again in a few years when we find it credible that you can be trusted.”
Craig,
I can’t share your righteous, old testament anger ! VW is not a “criminal enterprise ” anymore than any other organization in which a few members commit dishonest acts.
A puritanical desire to deliver excessive punishment on the collective for the sins of the few, is far more dangerous to society than the actions of VW since it erodes respect for the law as a fair, just and merciful source of a justice.
” People of conscience” shouldn’t join lynch mobs baying for excessive over the top punishments. Quite rightly, most people reject Donald Trump’s absurdly excessive (and impossible to implement) demand to impose travel restrictions on all Muslims. The desire to sanction an entire faith with 1.6 billion adherents or 22% of the world population, for the actions of a few misguided adherents, follows the same principle as your attitude to VW.
( I’m sure you would be appalled to discover you have so much in common with Donald 🙂
I’ve never really been a fan of VW, or Audi , (even though when younger,I owned a Porsche 911 and GT3, I always preferred other brands). However, I have witnessed the catastrophic impact on so many lives often caused by quite insignificant individuals on large organizations, These breaches of trust., are usually committed by a few individuals often in difficult circumstances.
Clearly, (and thankfully) the majority of consumers don’t feel the same as you. VW will have to accept a loss in profits, considerable loss of pride and corporate prestige, but will quickly recover and continue. Hopefully, only those responsible will be held to account, corporation governance will be reviewed and rehabilitated with a minimum of damage to VW’s ability to continue providing employment and economic wealth.
The environmental impact of VW’s malfeasance is relatively minimal. Once all the hysteria is discounted, along with media sensationalism,(especially the Guardian) it becomes apparent that any increase in pollutant emissions was pretty insignificant.
It’s important to retain a sense of perspective. One container ship emits more NOx pollution in a month than all the VW’s in operation. A single lawn mower would emit far more pollution than the extra emissions created by the deceptive software in a VW.
Hey, here’s an idea ! How about instead of sanctimonious destruction of VW as a brand, VW offered to fund the promotion of electric garden tools ? This would more than compensate for the ecological damage, help the economy, reduce noise pollution, promote health, and restore public interest and faith in pollution reduction ?
In the UK we have converted our entire estate to electric mowers, garden tools and small vehicles etc, (we’re still working on an EV tractor). We provide free bio-mass power for our village neighbors who elect to operate electric mowers etc. In Australia, I’ve been trying to persuade federal and State governments to introduce an incentive scheme or at least additional tax on 2 and four stroke equipment and fuel, so far with no success.
(curiously, the Green Party has been the least receptive).
I believe that from every negative, something positive can be recovered and built upon.
Well, again, I admit that I’m probably too worked up here, and for the reasons you name, i.e., VW is not truly a “criminal enterprise” insofar as there is no evidence that the people at the top formed a culture of criminality to which its employees by-and-large adhered. I need to calm down. It’s almost martini time; that should help. 🙂
Let’s see what happens with ExxonMobil. From my reading, anyone with any standing in the company understood as early as 1978 that the company’s own scientists had:
Firmly established the connection between between fossil fuel consumption and the ultimate climate disaster that we’re now starting to experience.
Assented to the company’s concerted efforts to hide and lie about these findings.
Went along with the company’s campaign to spend fortunes to mislead the rest of us into believing that human-caused climate change is a hoax, even though they knew it for a fact to be true.
I’m not sure the people of the world will be so forgiving, even after a collective martini.
Graig,
It’s summer in Australia, so I’ll forego a martini, (tempting) but join you with an Aussie strength beer ! 🙂
I don’t really think any lawsuit against Exxon has legal merit.
1) Exxon can point to thousands of instances where, over the decades, it co-operated with both the US and other governments into studies relating to the effects of fossil fuels not only on climate change but on all kinds of industrial issues.
2) There are no “victims”. There are no complaints from genuine shareholders that lost or even recklessly risked them losing any financial gain.
3) Corporations, are not obliged to share research or commissioned studies, with anyone, except under regulatory reporting requirements.
4)The idea that Rxxon was “guilty” of funding “climate denial scientists” is an absurd proposition. Exxon is quite entitled to fund research by anyone it chooses. Equally, an executive or director may chose what report to believe. The executive is not obliged to indulge in political or philosophic debate in formulating policy.
After all, the excutive could point to how certain the same scientists and advocates today arguing Climate Change once argued “Peak Oil”, the Exxon executive could argue that if Exxon had ignored Hubberts “J” curve earlier, the current oil gut would have occurred earlier.
5) The production of petroleum products is heavily regulated by highly qualified government agencies. Issues of climate change etc are for governments to decide policies, not individual corporations within an industry, including a reduction in heavy grades of oil. In fact Exxon could point to the fact that the US government insists that Exxon and the US oil industry produce highly toxic fuels by virtue of National Security. Chevron, Shell, Exxon, complained to the US government, and funded nearly the only research into the toxic and environmental harmful attributes of bunker oil , from the early eighties.
6) Exxon developed the lithium battery. Part of Exxon’s selling brief was that the new product would have environmental benefits.
7) As early as 1974, Exxon began researching a wide range of pollution and toxicity issues, it funded studies at many universities, some in conjunction with government agencies. All of these studies (which ran for decades) were made available.
8) Your assertion, even if true that ”
” (Exxon) understood as early as 1978 that the company’s own scientists had firmly established the connection between between fossil fuel consumption and the ultimate climate disaster that we’re now starting to experience, and assented to the company’s concerted efforts to hide and lie about these findings” wouldn’t constitute a “crime” !
Firstly, at no time did Exxon’s “own scientists” predict a “climate disaster”. Some scientists working for Exxon hypothesized a scenario of global warming created by fossil fuel carbon emissions, while other equally eminent scientists felt that gasoline and diesel fuels were only relatively minor contributors. ( that’s still a prevailing view among many highly accredited scientists) Accepting one view over another isn’t a crime.
9) Both Exxon and most sensible scientist would agree that although fossil fuels are major contributors to man made emissions, the entire world needs and relies on these products, and will for decades to come.
10) The comparison between tobacco and oil is a fallacy, existing purely in the minds of alarmist advocates. Oil is an essential product to human society. If I were representing Exxon I would only have to ask the Judge how he traveled to court, if the court caught fire, would he call a fire-engine, if his child was injured would he call an ambulance, would he prefer the keyboard on his computer was made of wood ?
No financial “risk” to a shareholder of consumer could possibly be established. Even with a massive15 year campaign advocating global warming/ climate change, Exxon is more profitable than ever!
The case is frivolous and pointless. Even more so because Exxon has ceased to really give a damn. Around 2010 Exxon realized whether the public loves or loathes oil companies, the public will still buy their products ! They really don’t need anyones “approval’ or “forgiveness” . Once Exxon cared about public relations, but that was yesterday, now Exxon just doesn’t care.
The American people don’t care either. You care, I care, but the vast majority of the American people don’t care. Europeans care a little more, but the rest of the world really doesn’t give a damn.
When it comes to choosing between a higher standard of living, or the environment, I’m afraid higher living standards and economic prosperity and security win every time.
Sadly, that’s a debate I’ll win every-time ! It’s not a debate I want to win, in fact I’d love to lose, but just look at the decline of sales of EV’s, and you’ll see I’m right.
Unlike you, I don’t believe we will experience an exciting apocalypse, so beloved of alarmist advocates, instead I see a long slow evolutionary process spread out over many decades.
Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/12/11/prosecution-of-exxon/
Craig,
As always thanks for getting us to think and reflect. When VW came out with these more efficent diesel and fuel burning products I think the hope of many of us was that it was true. That hope then overshadowed one of our old standard rules many of us have learned to respect and we had kinda misplaced it. We all know the one “if it sounds to good to be true, well it probably isn’t” . It was a common misplaced hope in VW which many positive, progressive, and optimistic souls such fell victim too. We also should just pick ourselves up and continue our march to a better view of our first and most important duty, stewards of our environment. So therefore we just need to accept the lesson, continue our march, and remember some of our old stand by rules and do not forget to apply them. Maybe an appropriate example is the baloney about fracking because some of the propaganda about that magic of easy, clean, and abundant gas is probably to good to be true. As always thank you, krumy
Craig, as a fellow owner I couldn’t be more disappointed with a company I supported and promoted in my own social circles. The deception is one thing. How they have handed it is another. My take: https://medium.com/@nboillot1/vw-america-s-note-to-vw-tdi-owners-translation-and-response-74933c78a342#.htogxj835
Nicolas