It’s going to be difficult to cover this article without coming across as being …..well….. not vindictive, but at the very least, negative towards the source, with whom I’ve had issues for some time. I’ve battled with myself over how to cover this, and am really trying hard to address it from an objective point of view. I’m covering this because recent news has the sale or closing of Saab as being a very real possibility, though I’m not inclined to believe it just yet.
–
Ryan Emge, publisher of Saab History, has sent an editorial to The Local, a Swedish newspaper published in English. The basic premise of the article is that the Swedish government should nationalise Saab Automobile if it’s jettisoned by its corporate parent, General Motors.
The article starts with a generalised history of Saab’s beginning as the offshoot of an aircraft company, a company that was formed in response to the government’s vision for national security.
Since 1947, Saab Automobile has been inextricably linked with its Swedish roots as an innovative and progressive automobile company. The heritage of Saab Automobile originally began in 1937 as an aircraft company.
The formation of Saab came in response to the immediate requirements of the Swedish Government during the War, so its foundations began as a byproduct of the government’s needs.
From there, Ryan discusses what he sees to be the after-effects of GM either selling or just plain shutting down the Saab brand:
Across Sweden, industry, academia and government will all be affected if Saab were to be relegated to the backburner of the GM portfolio. It is clear that reversing this trend is the best way for Saab to maintain its unique Swedish design, engineering, innovation and identity. While there have been rumours that GM is thinking about potentially selling Saab to another car manufacturer, I believe that nationalizing the brand is the proper and most suitable method in order to continue Saab Automobile.
So let’s have a look at the reasoning behind the suggestion:
Having lived in Sweden, I have seen first hand the nationalized public transportation system which is as a critical infrastructure for the Swedish economy to thrive. In this respect, I do not see why a car company like Saab could not be nationalized as well.
Recent history has taught us that both pure capitalism and pure socialism are both bound for ultimate failure.
The current credit crisis in the US is largely due to a massive lack of regulation in the financial sector and is proving the point that free markets won’t always create conditions where people will act for the common good. Whilst the market will reward people who do so, it’ll give real short term riches to those who don’t give a crap and wring every last penny from the consumer, whether the consumer can afford it or not. If the Gordon Gekkos responsible for it all manage to get out of the market before the fit hits the shan, then all well and good.
The fall of the Soviet Union should have taught us all that a purely socialist economic system doesn’t work too well, either. Having embraced what sort of looks like a capitalist market in the last 15 years, many of those former Soviet countries have seen some degree of growth and prosperity, though in many cases it’s probably relative.
The point of all this?
For society to work, there has to be a balance between government and the private sector. The government should take control of some of the essentials that effect us all, things that citizens in any decent modern country should have access to: basic healthcare, law and order, energy regulation, education, defence. The government should also have a hand in large scale infrastructure that the private sector won’t meet adequately, which is where transportation comes in.
There’s a place for the private sector in all the aforementioned areas, but it’s at the pointy end, the space that encourages excellence and innovation.
Shortly, we’ll take all this a step further and see why a government shouldn’t run a car company.
Back to Ryan’s reasonings as per The Local:
The infrastructure in which the vehicles travel has already been paid for by the Swedish government and comprises some of the best roads in the world. In addition, the academic institutions, through governmentally funded programmes, have also been subsidized by the Swedish Government when collaborating with Saab Automobile’s future product development.
I’m not sure what that first sentence has to do with anything. The roads are paid for by the people for the people. Ryan’s correctly named it as infrastructure and it ties in perfectly with my argument, above. The government does major infrustructure from which a direct profit is not expected to be realised. The roads provide a common service to the whole country, which makes trade a whole lot easier, which gives people an income and therefore the government a return through taxation of that income.
Government funded academia is one of those areas that illustrate how government and industry can work in partnership to provide a good outcome. It doesn’t always work, but most of the time it produces a good outcome. Again, though, projects like this are generally for research into things that will produce a community outcome, even if it benefits a private sector firm as well. The Swedish government helps out with hybrid research, for example, but I’d be surprised if they’re helping a firm produce a more addictive fast food. The common good.
Finally, the Swedish government will be at a significant advantage by owning Saab as it will have the full autonomy to design, build, and regulate the next generation of private transportation which will meet their goals of ending fossil fuel driven vehicles by 2020.
No. No no no.
It’s the government’s job to set the goals and the regulations to meet those goals. It’s the private sector’s job to comply and produce vehicles (in this case) that will meet whatever targets are set and be attractive to consumers.
The key here is partnership – to some extent – between govermnent and industry. Government can help with fuel cell research as the results may have applications across a number of scenarios. It’s not government’s place, though, to build and market the vehicles, and there’s very good reasons for that.
What was the last government mandated or sponsored vehicle to set the world on fire? Probably the Volkswagen Beetle. There’s been a number of other government-run vehicle manufacturers over the years, mostly in Eastern Europe and Asia and if you can think of a single one that produced something other than a basic rattler for the common man then all credit to you.
See, this is what government does, and it’s the whole point of why a state-owned Saab would be wrong.
Government produces the basics only. It doesn’t strive for excellence. It doesn’t push the envelope or innovate. It takes the innovations of others and regulates them.
Who would decide the strategic direction of a government owned Saab? How many people would be involved in the decision as to steering feel in a future government owned Saab? And of those people, how many would be kissing the butt of the next person up the food chain in the hope of being viewed favourably? (This is not a state-only problem by the way. I believe there’s plenty of that going on at GM right now)
How many would be scared to take a chance?
How many would be motivated to take a chance, given that the reward incentive base of the private sector has been removed?
How many of the best designers and engineers would stay at a State owned Saab and how many would accept more lucrative offers from private carmakers elsewhere in Europe?
The history books and many cities of the world are littered with the mediocrity of state owned enterprises. The Saab that I know and love to drive should never be allowed to sink to such a level. A state-owned Saab is most likely going to result in cars designed by committee, lacking the edge that’s going to draw people in and convince them to spend their money (much like what we’ve got right now, actually, only worse).
The truth is that Saab may well be sold or shuttered in the coming months, or they may continue as a division within GM. We just don’t know. But if they’re sold or shuttered it will be for a number of reasons. The first and obvious one is that they never grew big enough in the last 60 years to stand on their own two feet. More recently, they haven’t received enough investment from General Motors to really make a go of things. And some of the investment they did receive was squandered.
If Saab stay within the GM fold then GM have to invest in Saab. They’ve got the right formula for the future of motoring and great heritage to sell to people. In an article titled Saab may be GM’s best hope for the future, one writer states….
That leaves Saab. The accountants might conclude that it is a dying brand by its eroding sales and only 105 dealers. But Saab spells the automotive future, high quality small and midsized cars. Saab cars are nicely sculpted, or at least uniquely shaped. They have smaller engines with good handling and performance. Even though they share GM platforms, they retained differentiation. Saab is the perfect complement to Cadillac and should be built up rather than destroyed.
…which are my thoughts exactly.
If Saab is sold or shuttered, then I’ll join the rest of you in condemning GM for their lack of decent stewardship and I’ll hope like heck that any new owners can truly “get it”.
But a state-owned Saab?
Unless it’s a very, VERY short term arrangement to transfer ownership to a proper owner in the private sector, I could barely think of anything worse.
——
As mentioned in the intro, I’ve had issues in the past with Ryan. However, I’ve made every effort here to address the argument and not the person.
If you’re going to comment on either article, please take the same care.
–
If Saab (and/or Volvo) were owned briefly by the government until new owners could be found, that would be acceptable. I could also accept the government retaining say, a third of Saab, but not a controlling interest in the company. I guess Renault is perhaps the best example of state ownership, but even it decided that privatisation was essential to it’s continuation and growth and this happened in the mid nineties. I’m not sure if the French government still owns a part of Renault, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be that much?
The French Government owns 15.7% of Renault
I don’t think this was vindictive at all and you explained your views very well. Very nicely done and I completely agree. You should contact The Local and see if they could publish your side of the story.
Thx Wulf. A tricky road to travel, that one.
If Saab were to pass from GM, then a small stabilising shareholding by the government – a-la Renault – could be a good option indeed. But not 100%.
While I agree with your points in general about the value and role of government vs private industry, this is a case where a government could have a particular role. These are not perfect examples but think locally about institutions like Telstra, Commonwealth Bank, CSL and Qantas. All of these were once government owned and in most cases the majority shareholder is still the Australian government. Due to their size and level of infrastructure, they are seen as pillars of Australian society which require stability and continuity that only a government can offer. There are problems of different types with all of them but they are certainly not issues which hinder innovation or their ongoing viability. The government shareholding is a way for the IP and overall dirction of the companies to maintain a local focus.
I’m probably not making my point very well but the bottom line is, I see a lot of upside in the Swedish Government having a big stake in Saab.
“Across Sweden, industry, academia and government will all be affected if Saab were to be relegated to the backburner of the GM portfolio.”
Optimistic much? I’m pretty sure Saab has been on the back of the very back burner on low heat since Day 1.
Jeff, I’ve removed a portion of your comment as per my instruction in italics at the end of the post. To all commenters: As we like to say here in Australia, please play the ball and not the man. – SW
I don’t advocate total state ownership of Saab, but government ownership doesn’t necessarily rule out quirky cars. My father loved Renaults but only ever owned one of them. It was a Renault 16 which was probably the first successful hatchback. As a teenager I wasn’t keen on it. A somewhat sogggy handling, coloumn shifting hatchback wasn’t my cup of tea at the time, but now I have to admit it did have some charm and it was quirky.
Pete, point taken.
But if you look at those enterprises, it’s arguable that only one of them is persuing just a consumer market (Qantas).
CBA is an essential part of our financial infrastructure hence the government will always be interested in the stability of the big 4.
CSL is a scientific venture servicing the medical industry but they don’t have to market a product according to consumer demand, do they? Again, science is one of those areas that government make good partners in because the benefits to the community are there but the investment required can be huge.
Telstra – an infrastructure case that’s again, not doing so well since privatisation (arguably because of the continued government stake).
None of these are in ruthlessly competitive global consumer markets, though, like the car industry. As mentioned in my comment above, I totally agree that a minority stake could provide some good stability if an arrangement could be worked out.
I’d agree with Swade for the most part. Nationalization is not a viable long- or medium-term option for neither Saab nor Volvo. The government should regulate, not run businesses.
That said, however, if GM were to fail, or if they were forced to scrap Saab as a scapegoat towards securing government financing in the U.S. and assuming there are no parties interested in acquiring the brand, manufacturing and R&D facilities, then and only then it would make sense for the Swedish government to buy Saab Automobile as a short-term venture. And once the skies are clear again sell it to an interested third party – Swedish or not.
Before the current economic upheaval in the USA, I had fairly strong opinions about the government keeping their stinkin’ hands out of our business. But current events have got me thinking a bit differently. While I agree that government owned businesses have some very specific problems, I’m beginning to see the case for government intervention in extreme cases. As someone has said, desperate times call for desperate measures.
Steve I think this one could probably do the rounds over a steak at the Belgian Beer Cafe.
Can’t wait for another crack at the Beeb, mate. I just need to convince the Mrs that it’s a required excursion. – SW
I accept that what you say is correct in parts but the basic concept of the government being a major shareholder ( as opposed to sugar daddy when things get tough) clearly works for these large, publicly listed companies and that is my point. The details will always differ in each case but the principle has some precdent in contemporary commercial settings in my view.
Additionally, the Australian Government has an investment vehicle ( the Future Fund) which buys equity in public companies too. This is another, perhaps more commercial, approach that could work for Saab in Sweden if they have a similar fund. Like the US and Australian governments, if the car industry collapses and people are out of work, the Swedish government ends up with the bill anyway. Its not a question of IF but rather HOW and WHEN. Like medicine, prevention is always cheaper than a cure.
Andy, your sentiments about goverments role in business would seem to extend all the way to Wall St and thus, here we are. A finance sector with low levels of government regulation has spoiled the party for everyone. If we have intervention, sooner is better than later surely you’d agree?
To be honest, I am quite ignorant when it comes to national/global finances. But if things are as dire as the media depicts them to be, we’ve got “trouble right here in River City” (to borrow a line from the Music Man) and something needs to be done. Who knows? Maybe Warren Buffet will buy out the Big Three and we won’t have to speculate anymore.
“To all commenters: As we like to say here in Australia, please play the ball and not the man.”
Swade – The saying in just the opposite here in Canada. The golden rule is to play the man and remember to always finish your check. (Hockey is king here!)
Anyway, if GM were to try and sell SAAB and no buyers came forward I think the gov’t of Sweden would step up and play some type ownership role rather than have the company fold. This is not unusual for gov’ts to do to protect their economy when major industries are involved.
The Swedish government couldn’t do worse than GM, could they?
People harp that governments generally move too slow. Well I say, “think about the 11 year old 9-5.”
My swedish government taking possesion of Saab Automobile?
Hahahahahahhahahahaha! Funniest thing I’ve heard all week, that will -never- happen !
Sure they might ofer tax incentives etc. to a potential buyer if GM decided it’s up for sale (which I think is a stretch) but taking a majority ownership…..Naaaaah.
“The infrastructure in which the vehicles travel has already been paid for by the Swedish government and comprises some of the best roads in the world.”
Has he been to sweden in the last 10-15 years? Road mainteneance is sorely neglected and problematic areas are just band-aided and not dealt with in the proper way.
Germany has good roads, (even outside the Autobahn) Sweden, does not.
I have no idea who or what Ryan is, or any of the history, so this is totally focussed on the content of the article…
He’s clearly got no clue whatsoever of the basic economics of the contemporary automotive industry.
There is no way that a company the size of Saab can afford to develop competent, let alone market-leading, platforms today. Can’t happen. No chance. Uh-uh. The size of the wallet of the parent is irrelevant, unless that parent is happy to treat it as a very expensive hobby – and I can’t imagine the Swedish taxpayer (and there ain’t even _that_ many of ‘em) doing that…
The synergies of a multi-brand global manufacturer are not just desirable, they’re essential.
As a Swede (an important thing to be in a discussion like this), I agree with Swade. Nationalizing the auto industry is pure nonsense. This Ryan Emge has obviously no knowledge at all about Sweden’s post-war history and the kind of changes that repeatedly taken place in our industry. Not much else to say about it. It’s just crap from someone eager to be seen and heard.
Very good commentary from Swade, and all the others too, this is why I keep coming back.
I believe Fred has a point, the root cause for GM’s troubles lies in the US. To cut Saab would be a political gesture to appease a more protectionist political establishment. This goes for the Europeans too now that national interests needs to be protected.
How about spinning off GMEfrom GM, Let GM keep 25 percent but offer the rest on a European stock exchange. GME has made a lot of improvements over the past few years both in terms of efficiency and profitability. They have great products and brands in Saab and Opel and would be able to market those globally much more efficiently without the meddling of local GM chiefs sent out from Detroit because there is no more room at the Ren Cen.
Since GME is in pretty good shape, and is holding on to 10 per cent of the European market, access to cheap money should not be such a big problem as it is for GM today.
Living in sweden, born in Trollhättan, I just might have a few words in this debate.
Also I am a member of KAK Royal Swedish Automobile Club.
If GM decides to let Saab go, there must be a new owner.
- Swedish government should for a limited time run the business. The cost for the society will be enormous if worst things nappen.
- Swedish economy is more or less based on transportation technology companies. Both Saab and Volvo must be saved for the sake of the whole nation. Just so you who have limited knowledge of how the economy looks like here.
- Best would be Wallenberg economic sphere (past owners), or other local swedish financiers.
Hmmm… why not replace our royal family with Saab?
Saab is a way better international representative for Sweden and swedishness than the Bernadotte family is, and could actually produce some income for the country if managed right.
The big problem would probably be to find a buyer for the Bernadottes… maybe Thailand needs a new king soon?
Thanks Jorgen. See everyone, there is some sense in it. For all those who think that Saab couldn’t survive as a stand-alone, just remember that most cars are designs that incorporate components from a wide range of suppliers. No reason why all the existing suppliers can’t continue their arrangements. Think outside the box everyone, the solution for Saab might be something very simple like a government stake. Even for the longer term.
Martin N
We tried to sell ours to the Chinese, but the paperwork got mixed up, and they ended up with Rover instead.
Damn those beaurocrats and their paperwork.
Saab Automobile employs almost 5,000 people in Sweden. Of those 5,000, only 2,200 work in production and would have a hard time getting a new job fast. Then some other figures. Number of people in Sweden that were given an advance note about loosing their job:
Sep: 8,000
Oct: 20,000
Nov: so far 14,400
And still, the crises in Sweden is not really noticeable for everyone. Thanks to a functioning banking sector and stable national finances, we are riding out the storm very well so far. The IT industry is actually looking desperately for qualified people to hire. I know that people also works at suppliers for the auto industry, but they seldom work only with Saab since Saab is a small player in the industry.
Since I remember the crises in the seventies when our shipbuilding industry (one of the biggest in the world) went down, I believe that nationalizing is not the solution. That time, it costed the tax payers enormous amount of money and in the end it led to absolutely nothing since the industry couldn’t compete anyway. It would had been much cheaper to just close it down, and instead use the money to educate people or help start new businesses in other sectors.
As for the brain-drain factor… During the seventies and the eighties, Sweden lost the shipbuilding industry, most of our textiles and clothing industry, most of our electromechanical industry (typewrites, calculators, telephones). We kept our airplane industry since the Government in the early eighties decided to order the next generation military aircrafts from Saab. It has costed the taxpayers huge sums, and frankly I’m not sure if it was worth it. Most of the key technologies are still licensed from other countries.
That said, I (of course) want Saab Automobile to continue its operations. But doing so under a government ownership is not the solution.
If the government should take a stake in Saab as temporally, then could be fine for the swedish industry, but nothing else.
Here in Spain we have the “cajas de ahorros” its a type of banks, usually owned partially by local governments. They are regulated by a special law here in Spain as it has the consideration of “social companies”. For example by law they should spend at least 30% of its profits in social expenses, and so….
I say that because in those companies as many private companies that the government has an importante stake. There are a lot of bad decisions, based in the government priorities instead of a usual company objectives, corruption, people that is added in the company because its a friend of… and all of that inefficiencies quite usual in the governments. The only objective of the government and politics is to obtain votes and be in the power, with that objective in mind they try to avoid any decision isn’t politically correct, and any decision has a bad effect in the jobs in the country.
A private sector company its main objective its to magnify as much as possible its profitability. Taking that in consideration, the big loss of possible competitiveness in Saab could be increased if its owned by the government at long term. What it should do the government as any other government is to control the private sector and put and offer the necessary tools to obtain a sustainable economic grow, the free market and that market it works well and with justice. When that government enters in the game of the private sector automatically goes to obtain the monopoly of the market with the excuse its a strategic sector.
Many people say the problems we have now are caused by a lack of regulation in the financial sector. meeeeeeeeeec. The most regulated sectors in USA are the real state and the financial sector. Then where is the problem?? well there is regulations, but those weren’t applied correctly, the authorities didn’t were in alert and those regulations and authorities didn’t innovated to be aware of possible problems. Because when you regulate something the private sector finds ways to avoid that regulation and the authorites should be aware of that and for that reason they need to innovate and be aware, the controls should be there but should be flexible and easier, because if they applu more and more control then appears more beaurocracy. Take a look at the Subprime, an idea from Clinton team, to give credits to the NINJA as a way of leaving the 90′s crisis and through public finance companies(Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae). This is a good example of how a half owned by the public sector company should take bad decisions based in political objectives. And the Basilea rules, its an example how the authorities do some rules and they weren’t aware of the financial sector innovation and how those “old” rules caused all this mess.
cheers
As already said above, renault is really the best exemple, owned by french government from end of WWII until early 90′s , during this period the company goes in formula 1 and wins Le Mans, and the company was salved, now back to private with still 15% to the governement, this is one of the top car manufacturer now…so why not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault
My view is – governments should stay away from failling businesses.
If GM collapses and sells Saab, then the Swedish government should buy it. Sweden needs Saab and all the employees that are directly and indirectly employed by the company. But the government should only step in to save it, not manage it. Government ownership does have the major advantage of stability, but the decisions still need to made in Trollhättan, not in Stockholm. As soon as Saab is on its feet again, it should be “let loose” and find a new owner. Wallenberg is not a bad idea. They’ve owned it before so the company would merely be coming “home” hehe.
Technically… very technically, it would be for the best if GM, Ford and all the other giants collapsed and all the smaller brands got to stand on their own. This is how it all started once upon a time. The competition would be better, the cars would be better, everything would be better. The way things are going, when will we end up with one super giant car manufacturer producing all the cars of the world?
Etienne – You’re forgetting a couple of small details, though.
Firstly, Renault produce one HECK of a lot more cars than Saab. Renault produce somewhere around 2.5 million cars per year – or roughly 20 cars for every one Saab build.
Secondly, Renault can’t survive alone, either. They’re firmly in bed with Nissan (3.5m cars per year), with a lot of technology & platform sharing going on to help spread the costs. Between the two brands, that’s about 50 times Saab’s production.
One thing that sets the Swedish car manufacturers apart from almost all the others is that they can’t rely on their home markets alone. The Swedish market is more than ten times smaller than, let’s say, the French.
So government ownership is not a very good option if you have to go onto the international market anyway.
As a bridge to a new owner or new partnership, it makes sense for the government to step in. But anything more than that would be bad news, indeed.
there is over 200 Saab dealers in the US at least there was recently…..
David Blumberg,
Do you really think that a small company could compete in the global market now? SAAB almost went under before GM bought them. Most small car companies end up being bought out because they don’t have the R&D, advertising, or design budgets that the big boys do. I think it would be extremely difficult for any small car company to sell cars at the prices GM currently offers—especially with the new MPG and emissions standards.
I came to the conclusion that the only chance for survival that Saab has is the Swedish government.
Now keep in mind, my politics are libertarian leaning, and I’m only evaluating the question “what’s best for Saab?” and not “what’s best for the Swedish taxpayer?”
But there is no business case for Saab, period. The brand isn’t where it needs to be, and Saab’s best advantages are overwhelmed in a big multi-car company like GM. A big investor is needed who has a lot of patience, and with the capital crisis, such an investor doesn’t exist.
Nationalization is the only way to go. Saab is the ideal size for it–big enough for the Swedish government to care, but small enough so that it can be given independence and it’s not unwieldy. The Swedish government is the right size for a nationalizing government–big enough to make the investment, but small enough to realize that Saab requires professional managers and plenty of independence.
I really don’t think there’s any other way.
Swade, consider this:
You say that a lack of regulation caused the current financial crisis rooted in the US, and you deduce from this that pure capitalism doesn’t work and that a balance of government and private industry is best.
On the contrary, I believe that in the 90s the U.S. government interfered with Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand of capitalism’ by strongly encouraging finance companies to loan to those who previously could not qualify for loans.
Finance companies, when left to themselves, did not start these high-risk home and car loans – all of which led to the current crisis – rather, government intervention and direction to make loans led to a distorted market.
I maintain that true capitalism at its purest would have worked fine – those bad loans would have never been made, and, therefore, the foundation for your argument endorsing a public/private balance in industry would be baseless.
Government should be kept at its LOWEST POSSIBLE level of involvement, enabling our pursuits of freedoms and happiness.
What that means for this argument I am not sure.
What we should learn from this, though, is that too much government interference is dangerous and should be avoided. It got us into this mess.
Swade,
Maybe it is time to change to the idea of letting the Swedish Government take control of the two car makers in Göteborg and Trollhättan.
According to Saturday edition of Swedens largest Morning newspaper “Dagens Nyheter” http://www.dn.se a survey amoung swedes give the vote 70 % are in favour af nationalization.
A senior writer on swedish car industry says “If Saab falls, Volvo will go down as well….!
In the same newpaper there an article from Warren Mi on the same issue sp to speak. Interesting enough one of the pictures is a I guess recent bumper sticker saying.
“Out of a job yet? KEEP BUYING FOREIGN!”
Have NOT seen sticker like this in Sweden (yet), but if the US goes protectionistic what should we in a small country do?
I do not agree.
Goverment ownership usually leads to over-engineered things. Everything is thought through and nothing is just left as is. Now I talk about Sweden, I don’t know how it works in other countries. There’s no lets just be happy with this minimum requirements, have never existed in Sweden. I know the EU is full of lets sit down and collect money mentality. Just as the Russian and American car industry in a nutshell aswell. They have alot in common even if they spawn from different “systems”. They both make crap cars frankly.
Sweden have good roads. Seen to the size of the country (second largest in the EU) and the population just a 10% of Germany’s. Sweden also have good virtual roads as in as fast internet connections. Much due to the over-engineered and widely available due the former state-owned phone monopoly. I guess you never heard about Absolut Vodka either? Just some random small vodka brand, nothing special. It was just a product of a boring state-owned company. So I’ll guess it just was a huge flop according to the people who know better.
The problem lies in the ownership of SAAB and Volvo. I don’t know if fails so bad because they’re American or capitalists but the combination is just lethal. GM sold SAAB motor division, the one that made SAAB to what it is. Ford scrapped Volvo’s biogas programme and wrecked the Norwegian electric car manufacturer Th!nk. They also paint Volvos pink, put flowers on them, call them life-style cars and charge premium. And they wonder what went wrong!? GM wanted to produce SAABs in Germany, released the 9-7x and built it in USA. That’s just blasphemy aswell.
Goverment ownership will certainly not make it worse.