On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:50:56 -0500, wrote:

On 17 Nov 2008 15:08:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said:


Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys
so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less
than they cost to make?

I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to sell
a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell
enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they
have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get them
sold.

More baloney. Toyota is obviously making cars that people want, and
they have to meet all the same standards as Chevy and everybody else.
Toyota is selling more cars, despite charging substantially more for
similarly sized and equipped models. Please explain how that is
possible. They may be paying their labor less money, but they sure
aren't competing on price, so labor costs are obviously not a factor.

Psychological factors, especially "brand loyalty, play a large role in
auto sales. For YTD sales of light vehicles through October, see
below.
GM by itself outsells Toyota when trucks are included. How many
Silverado owners would maintain brand loyalty and switch to
Impalas/Malibus/Cobalts because of high gas prices is anybody's guess,
but Impala sales aren't too far behind Camry, and one could argue GM
is hardly trying.
I understand Impala sales were actually up 9% last month.
High gas prices hit GM particularly hard, knocking their light truck
sales down sharply.
GM's main problem has been not concentrating on keeping brand loyalty
in the auto sector by emphasizing quality and customer service.
And longevity of models. Think about it.
They have nothing with the continuous improving history of the
Camry/Corolla/Accord/Civic.
Instead of improving their competing models, they go to a new model
every 10-12 years or so.
Their management is very short-sighted.
But labor/legacy costs must also be a big factor in their
profitability.

http://wardsauto.com/keydata/USSalesSummary0810.xls

--Vic

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:53:43 -0700, "Charles Momsen"
said:

As of June 08, they have net assets of $136 billion. The largest
bankruptcy
in history occurred in Sept 08 with assets of over $600 billion. It's
right
on the bankruptcy link.

Poor comparison. Financial assets are generally either marked to market,
or
not too far out of line with their cost. Depreciated property, plant and
equipment dating back many years is in no way comparable.

You're correct it's apples and oranges. Thanks for pointing that out. So is
it better to look at replacement cost of the depreciated assets or GM's
market capitalization of under $2 Billion? If the company can be bought in
its entirety for $2 Billion, why wouldn't an investor buy the company,
starve out the union (close the doors for a few years) and put it back in
operation? Assets of better than $136 billion, yet a capitalization of under
$2 billion? Gee, I wonder why no one is jumping on this great deal. Do you
think if GM was capitalized at $1 there would still be no takers? Look for
the union label!

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
wrote in message
news troll sh*t removed

Oh boy, Momsen, the long windup is great. I can hardly wait for the
pitch!


Sad people. Clearly obsessed. I feel sorry for them.


Don't feel sorry. People get what they deserve, you included.

wrote in message
...
On 17 Nov 2008 15:08:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said:


Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys
so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less
than they cost to make?

I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to
sell
a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell
enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they
have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get
them
sold.

More baloney. Toyota is obviously making cars that people want, and
they have to meet all the same standards as Chevy and everybody else.
Toyota is selling more cars, despite charging substantially more for
similarly sized and equipped models. Please explain how that is
possible. They may be paying their labor less money, but they sure
aren't competing on price, so labor costs are obviously not a factor.



Toyota is only selling more because people haven't discovered Kia, the
minivan of choice with its excellent crash rating. Nothing can stop the Kia
except slightly icy roads!

On 17 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:50:56 -0500, said:

Toyota is obviously making cars that people want, and
they have to meet all the same standards as Chevy and everybody else.

Go do a bit more research about the marketplace, and then we can talk. You
clearly haven't done it.

So you disagree with the above? Toyota isn't selling more cars than
Chevy? Toyota doesn't have to meet all the same standards that Chevey
has to meet? I think it's you who needs to do a bit more research.
Make that a LOT more research. You are truly without a clue.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later.

Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making
any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:24:38 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:50:56 -0500, wrote:

On 17 Nov 2008 15:08:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:12:45 -0500, said:


Total, unmitigated baloney. If costs are the problem, why are Chevys
so much cheaper to buy than Toyotas? Are they selling them for less
than they cost to make?

I suspect so in many cases. Thanks to the enviros, they are required to sell
a bunch of cars the people don't want to buy in order to be able to sell
enough of the larger cars that people do want. To get people to buy they
have to drop the price on the ones no one wants to buy in order to get them
sold.

More baloney. Toyota is obviously making cars that people want, and
they have to meet all the same standards as Chevy and everybody else.
Toyota is selling more cars, despite charging substantially more for
similarly sized and equipped models. Please explain how that is
possible. They may be paying their labor less money, but they sure
aren't competing on price, so labor costs are obviously not a factor.

Psychological factors, especially "brand loyalty, play a large role in
auto sales. For YTD sales of light vehicles through October, see
below.
GM by itself outsells Toyota when trucks are included. How many
Silverado owners would maintain brand loyalty and switch to
Impalas/Malibus/Cobalts because of high gas prices is anybody's guess,
but Impala sales aren't too far behind Camry, and one could argue GM
is hardly trying.
I understand Impala sales were actually up 9% last month.
High gas prices hit GM particularly hard, knocking their light truck
sales down sharply.
GM's main problem has been not concentrating on keeping brand loyalty
in the auto sector by emphasizing quality and customer service.
And longevity of models. Think about it.
They have nothing with the continuous improving history of the
Camry/Corolla/Accord/Civic.

Really? I remember Lots of people driving around in Chevy BelAir's.
That model was renamed Impala in the mid 1950's. How long has the
Toyota Camry been around?

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:25:54 -0500, wrote:



Really? I remember Lots of people driving around in Chevy BelAir's.
That model was renamed Impala in the mid 1950's. How long has the
Toyota Camry been around?

1983, or 25 years.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...rticleId=46002

The Impala has been 3 different cars since its inception.
The old family RWD V-8 sedan, the '94-'96 Vette engine RWD, and the
current FWD V-6, introduced in 2000.
All totally different cars, and none designed with the long-term goals
Toyota had for the Camry. The Accord has a similar history with the
Camry, and those 2 have been the top selling models in the U.S.since
about 1987.
Maybe GM will continue to improve the current Impala if they stay in
business.
It compares favorably with the Camry/Accord.
The purpose-built Corolla (economy/quality) passed the VW Bug in
all-time sales about 5 years ago and continues to put distance between
it and anything else.
Toyota/Hondas concentration on putting quality in their mainstays of
family cars, and keeping the model names continuously to maximize
brand loyalty is their big advantage.
They've stood behind these cars for warranty issues more solidly than
the Big 3 too.
A pretty simple formula for success. But that's too ****ing
intellectual a concept for the minds of Big 3 management.
BTW, I'm a GM guy. I always get good used cars for a low price.
That's why I was able to retire early.

--Vic

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think
the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour
wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not
to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit
costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's
the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a
bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or
more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite
a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later.

Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making
any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.


Neither is labor at the core of the solution.

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're
trying
to
do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I
believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would
clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the
problems
and renegotiate their packages.

I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big
three
pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think
the
UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour
wage
gap? I don't think so.

I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not
to
work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit
costs,
which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's
the
percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their
wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a
bit
less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer.

Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into
the
unemployment lines?

We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for
the
former.

Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can
stand
right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or
more?
You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite
a
bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it
later.

Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making
any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even
remotely at the core of GM's problems.


Neither is labor at the core of the solution.


None of these posters have a clue. All are at least slightly brainwashed
into thinking socialism is the answer or part of the answer.

They are 100% wrong!

The answer is a 100% belief in a free market economy, 100% support of a free
market economy and 100% implementation of a free market economy. Crybabies
please leave the building! A free market economy is Darwin's evolutionary
survival of the fittest applied to the market place. Any other system allows
survival of the less fit and the unfit to the detriment and eventual
downfall of the system. Too much dead weight for even the superbly fit to
carry.

It's that simple!

Wilbur Hubbard