"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:37:58 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..


Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q,
according
to the GM guy.

Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass.
GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year.
Toyota-heads and Honda-heads and most Californians don't have a clue
about the real automotive world.
GM will survive as GM. Chevrolet won't go away.
Same for Ford.
Don't know about Chrysler.
Come back next year when you're sober.


To whom are you speaking? I don't own a Japanese car.

No, you're the Californian who called Salty's lame "analysis" nice.
It was merely a shallow diatribe.
How he thought up this fantasy of "start-ups" replacing GM, Ford and
Chrysler is especially wacky. Drugs, I assume.

Yes, I'm a californian. Is that the ad hominim attack you were planning? His
analysis seemed pretty accurate to me. If you disagree, that's your right.

If GM is so
successful, then how come it's got it's hand out?

Reminiscent of someone else here. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I never called them "so successful."

You said, "GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year." Are you claiming that
isn't being successful? Seems pretty successful to me.


I'm betting GM will not
survive, at least not as it is now.

Of course they will be different companies, bailout or not.
In fact, should Congress refuse them money, which would be fine with
me, GM could squeeze the unions and close/sell off their Cadillac,
Pontiac, and various SUV plants and remain profitable selling pickup
trucks and their best selling passenger cars. Ford could make an
equivalent move.

Maybe, maybe not. Pickup sales are way down.

This is assuming their management has the balls.
The UAW workers are on the ropes, and they don't have exec jets,
caviar, resorts, and "high class" hookers paid for with expense
accounts to give up. But they do need their jobs, not having salted
away millions as the execs have.
I don't understand Chrysler - at all, so have no suggestions.


Ford is in better shape, but who knows.
This would be the second bailout for Chrysler.

Here's something below to read. It's very basic stuff.
It's plain silly to talk of putting a fork in the U.S./Canadian Big 3
and "start-ups" will just pick up the pieces.
It ain't gonna happen. None of that.
Like I said, it takes the clueless to propose the ridiculous, and a
Californian to stamp it as a "nice analysis."

Oh screw you. Are you in a fly-over state?

I'm surprised that I'm beginning to appreciate Neal's analytical
skills as the best thing on this group.

Neal's analysis only has the first four letters going for him. You must be a
non-Californian to be unable to recognize this.

Myth No. 1
Nobody buys their vehicles.

So, they're successful, but not compared to.... ?

Myth No. 2
They build unreliable junk.

Yeah, they have better cars than in the 80s/90s. Still crap. I've owned
newer ones. Not interested.

Myth No. 3
They build gas-guzzlers.

And, they fought the CAFE standards every mile of the way.

Myth No. 4
They already got a $25-billion bailout.

Never heard this one... I believe they were trying for the financial bailout
justification.

Myth No. 5
GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.

They just can't seem to react fast enough.

Myth No. 6
They don't build hybrids.

Sure. And, no one buys them or trusts the companies will be around.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com