|
Whooopeee!!!!!
Check out the bailout spending:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27719011 If I'm not mistaken, it exceeds the Federal Budget by about 50% !!!!! Whoooooopeeeeeeee!!!!! Put your hard earned dollars under the mattresses folks, if its where the government can find they are going to tax it heavily. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:23:03 -0700, "Charles Momsen" said: Put your hard earned dollars under the mattresses folks, if its where the government can find they are going to tax it heavily. And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW. Wait! This just in: Democratic Controlled Congress acts recklessly with $700 Billion dollars! http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...1_hHecri880405 The Democrats just hand over an additional 25% of the US budget and demands no accountability! The hard working American taxpayers are swindled! Swindled! By the Democratic Controlled Congress! The reckless Democrats will destroy your life savings! And take whatever is left!!!!!! Can Obama fix the problem? Hope! |
Whooopeee!!!!!
Call for a return to the gold standard:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9790 The Federal Reserve is doing an outstanding job! |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... troll sh*t removed And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW. Do you believe that we should allow the Big Three to fail? I'm kinda on the fence about this... on the one hand, I think we should, because they got themselves into this mess. On the other hand, this would displace millions of people.... not exactly the best thing to do in the current economy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... troll sh*t removed And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW. Do you believe that we should allow the Big Three to fail? I'm kinda on the fence about this... on the one hand, I think we should, because they got themselves into this mess. On the other hand, this would displace millions of people.... not exactly the best thing to do in the current economy. Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure. Under bankruptcy the companies can be restructured, some debts eliminated and contracts renegotiated. Here's an article you can read and add to your vast repertoire of MBA knowledge (unless you want to continue parroting the false dilemma of "allow the Big Three to fail") : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrup..._United_States |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I'm kinda on the fence about this... Don't worry, the Democrat talking points will be out soon and then you can be certain of where you are told to stand on this issue. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... troll sh*t removed And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW. Do you believe that we should allow the Big Three to fail? I'm kinda on the fence about this... on the one hand, I think we should, because they got themselves into this mess. On the other hand, this would displace millions of people.... not exactly the best thing to do in the current economy. Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure. Under bankruptcy the companies can be restructured, some debts eliminated and contracts renegotiated. Here's an article you can read and add to your vast repertoire of MBA knowledge (unless you want to continue parroting the false dilemma of "allow the Big Three to fail") : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrup..._United_States You're attempting to educate Gaynze about bankruptcy? Bwwahahahhahahahhahah! Hey, he's morally bankrupt so surely he knows all about it. Wilbur Hubbard |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I'm kinda on the fence about this... Don't worry, the Democrat talking points will be out soon and then you can be certain of where you are told to stand on this issue. You know, Mr. Momsen, at first I was really depressed that Obama won. But, as time passes, I'm starting to think it's the best thing that could have happened. Why? Because now the idiot liberals who voted for the Marxist Mulatto will have reality pounded into their thick, Neanderthal skulls as their entire, comfy economic world, heretofore based on the hard work of the productive, crumbles around their feet as the productive flee the excessive regulation and taxation. They will soon know how stupid they were voting for change and hyped image when they haven't the smallest clue the image is a travesty or what kind of change they voted for. One would like to think it's all gonna wake these idiots up but I certainly won't hold my breath. Wilbur Hubbard |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure. Under bankruptcy the companies can be restructured, some debts eliminated and contracts renegotiated. Here's an article you can read and add to your vast repertoire of MBA knowledge (unless you want to continue parroting the false dilemma of "allow the Big Three to fail") : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrup..._United_States You're attempting to educate Gaynze about bankruptcy? Bwwahahahhahahahhahah! Hey, he's morally bankrupt so surely he knows all about it. Wilbur Hubbard Here's the education---- GM's net assets are listed he http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GM 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. So why is the concern over GM bankruptcy, which is only 20% of the largest? Throw in the 2 other automakers and it still is much less than a $600 billion + bankruptcy. It's all about having the public subsidize the plush union benefits at the expense of those who have much, much less. Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through the windshield! Ganz can't be educated. He merely repeats what he is told, very little - if any - thinking goes on between his ears. But that's Dave's puppet show - an enjoyable one indeed! Thankfully we have brilliant, masterful people such as you, Wilbur Hubbard, to counteract the masses of drooling, unthinking, knee jerk liberals. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... I'm kinda on the fence about this... Don't worry, the Democrat talking points will be out soon and then you can be certain of where you are told to stand on this issue. You know, Mr. Momsen, at first I was really depressed that Obama won. But, as time passes, I'm starting to think it's the best thing that could have happened. Why? Because now the idiot liberals who voted for the Marxist Mulatto will have reality pounded into their thick, Neanderthal skulls as their entire, comfy economic world, heretofore based on the hard work of the productive, crumbles around their feet as the productive flee the excessive regulation and taxation. They will soon know how stupid they were voting for change and hyped image when they haven't the smallest clue the image is a travesty or what kind of change they voted for. One would like to think it's all gonna wake these idiots up but I certainly won't hold my breath. I think Obama getting elected is a blessing too, for slightly different reasons. If he operates as a Democrat, he will kill the economy, most likely the world economy and everyone will blame the Democrats which is the proper thing to do. If he realizes the gravity of the entire world situation and wants to be successful, he can only adopt true conservative principles and policies. So then he'll have to carry the Bush doctrine forward, with obvious improvements, and be called a hypocrite by his base and a liberal by his opponents. As you say, no matter what, reality will be pounded in - the question is: Can they learn anything from it this time around? In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die." Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more. As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire; And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure. Under bankruptcy the companies can be restructured, some debts eliminated and contracts renegotiated. Here's an article you can read and add to your vast repertoire of MBA knowledge (unless you want to continue parroting the false dilemma of "allow the Big Three to fail") : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrup..._United_States You're attempting to educate Gaynze about bankruptcy? Bwwahahahhahahahhahah! Hey, he's morally bankrupt so surely he knows all about it. Wilbur Hubbard Here's the education---- GM's net assets are listed he http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GM 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. So why is the concern over GM bankruptcy, which is only 20% of the largest? Throw in the 2 other automakers and it still is much less than a $600 billion + bankruptcy. It's all about having the public subsidize the plush union benefits at the expense of those who have much, much less. BINGO! The unions have done what they do best. They have priced themselves out of the marketplace but, since Democrats are beholden to and dependent upon their Union voting block, Democrat leglislators are going to to do their best to spread the debt from the union looters to the productive, non-union private sector. If unions can't recruit somebody legitmately they're very good at stealing what they want - always have been. Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through the windshield! Ganz can't be educated. He merely repeats what he is told, very little - if any - thinking goes on between his ears. But that's Dave's puppet show - an enjoyable one indeed! Thankfully we have brilliant, masterful people such as you, Wilbur Hubbard, to counteract the masses of drooling, unthinking, knee jerk liberals. I pale in comparison to you, Dear Sir!!! Keep up the good work. Wilbur Hubbard |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure. Under bankruptcy the companies can be restructured, some debts eliminated and contracts renegotiated. Here's an article you can read and add to your vast repertoire of MBA knowledge (unless you want to continue parroting the false dilemma of "allow the Big Three to fail") : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrup..._United_States You're attempting to educate Gaynze about bankruptcy? Bwwahahahhahahahhahah! Hey, he's morally bankrupt so surely he knows all about it. Wilbur Hubbard Here's the education---- GM's net assets are listed he http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GM 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. So why is the concern over GM bankruptcy, which is only 20% of the largest? Throw in the 2 other automakers and it still is much less than a $600 billion + bankruptcy. It's all about having the public subsidize the plush union benefits at the expense of those who have much, much less. BINGO! The unions have done what they do best. They have priced themselves out of the marketplace but, since Democrats are beholden to and dependent upon their Union voting block, Democrat leglislators are going to to do their best to spread the debt from the union looters to the productive, non-union private sector. If unions can't recruit somebody legitmately they're very good at stealing what they want - always have been. Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through the windshield! Ganz can't be educated. He merely repeats what he is told, very little - if any - thinking goes on between his ears. But that's Dave's puppet show - an enjoyable one indeed! Thankfully we have brilliant, masterful people such as you, Wilbur Hubbard, to counteract the masses of drooling, unthinking, knee jerk liberals. I pale in comparison to you, Dear Sir!!! Keep up the good work. Wilbur Hubbard Good Wilbur, it is not the torch bearers but the torch itself. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure. Under bankruptcy the companies can be restructured, some debts eliminated and contracts renegotiated. Here's an article you can read and add to your vast repertoire of MBA knowledge (unless you want to continue parroting the false dilemma of "allow the Big Three to fail") : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrup..._United_States You're attempting to educate Gaynze about bankruptcy? Bwwahahahhahahahhahah! Hey, he's morally bankrupt so surely he knows all about it. Wilbur Hubbard Here's the education---- GM's net assets are listed he http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=GM 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. So why is the concern over GM bankruptcy, which is only 20% of the largest? Throw in the 2 other automakers and it still is much less than a $600 billion + bankruptcy. It's all about having the public subsidize the plush union benefits at the expense of those who have much, much less. BINGO! The unions have done what they do best. They have priced themselves out of the marketplace but, since Democrats are beholden to and dependent upon their Union voting block, Democrat leglislators are going to to do their best to spread the debt from the union looters to the productive, non-union private sector. If unions can't recruit somebody legitmately they're very good at stealing what they want - always have been. Look for the union label on the baseball bat coming through the windshield! Ganz can't be educated. He merely repeats what he is told, very little - if any - thinking goes on between his ears. But that's Dave's puppet show - an enjoyable one indeed! Thankfully we have brilliant, masterful people such as you, Wilbur Hubbard, to counteract the masses of drooling, unthinking, knee jerk liberals. I pale in comparison to you, Dear Sir!!! Keep up the good work. Wilbur Hubbard Good Wilbur, it is not the torch bearers but the torch itself. Speaking of torch bearers, when are those fires ever going to get to Orangevale? Wilbur Hubbard |
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message
... 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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:10:45 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: "Dave" wrote in message . .. troll sh*t removed And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW. Do you believe that we should allow the Big Three to fail? I'm kinda on the fence about this... on the one hand, I think we should, because they got themselves into this mess. On the other hand, this would displace millions of people.... not exactly the best thing to do in the current economy. Absolutely. The big three will never be competitive with the built in costs of what they've given away in the past, including bloated wages, unsustainable pensions, ongoing payments to former workers not to work, capital costs of non-operating plants...you name it. Throwing more money at them just postpones the reckoning and increases its ultimate cost. When the Japanese have a $30 an hour advantage in the amount they pay their U.S. workers, the big 3 are never going to compete. Yes, the stockholders would get wiped out, or more likely squeezed down to a very small percentage of ownership, with creditors becoming the equity owners. And management would likely be tossed our. But companies in Chapter 11 don't generally go out of business (though some do). They continue in business under new owners. If the car companies could shed nonproductive assets, get rid of legacy costs and costs of paying people not to work, reduce their debt service costs and costs of capital, and relocate operations to right to work states there's no reason they couldn't become competitive, and without a taxpayer bailout. Well, I agree that companies don't necessarily go completely under, but my main concern, which was voiced by both conservative and liberal economists, is that people would likely not want to buy such a big-ticket item from companies with uncertain futures. For example, I was considering a big-screen tv... couple of grand, from Circuit City. But, they're in Chap. 11, so the question is should I be concerned, even though the warranty is thru the manufacturer. Probably not. But, with autos it's a bit different. If consumers decided not to risk it, then the sales would go to zero or close to zero (not that they're going gangbusters now). Then, we would have massive layoffs, not just the UAW, but throughout the stream of suppliers, dealers, etc. It run into the millions. If this were to happen in good economic times, then I would be less concerned. But, this isn't the situation. 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. Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into the unemployment lines? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... 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. Huh?? Forced to sell cars that don't sell? Nonsense. They may be dumb but they're not stupid. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
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. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:28:14 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: wrote in message .. . 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. I think you are missing something on this one, Jon. Just be patient... |
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:28:14 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message . .. 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. I think you are missing something on this one, Jon. Just be patient... I miss a lot these days. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"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! |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... wrote in message ... 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. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
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! |
Whooopeee!!!!!
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. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
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. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
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? |
Whooopeee!!!!!
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 |
Whooopeee!!!!!
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. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"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 |
Whooopeee!!!!!
Charles Momsen wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... troll sh*t removed And now Harry and Nancy want to use it to bail out the UAW. Do you believe that we should allow the Big Three to fail? I'm kinda on the fence about this... on the one hand, I think we should, because they got themselves into this mess. On the other hand, this would displace millions of people.... not exactly the best thing to do in the current economy. Going into bankruptcy and receivership is not necessarily failure. Yeah right. Would you buy a vehicle from a company that had filed for Chapter 11? If so I think you'd be in the minority. Cheers Martin |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:39:47 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: 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. Huh?? Forced to sell cars that don't sell? Nonsense. They may be dumb but they're not stupid. The problem is not the big three's stupidity (well, it is in part, but that's another story). The problem is the guvmint's stupidity. All those Congress critters you elected. ??? Totally strange response. Toyota/Honda and others sell very enviro friendly cars, lots and lots of them, for more money. GM totally screwed up... for decades! I'd call that pretty stupid. How is the gov't suddenly preventing GM from selling cars?????? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:24:38 -0600, Vic Smith said: But labor/legacy costs must also be a big factor in their profitability. Of course. And with their labor/legacy cost disadvantage they have to sell more of the heavier vehicles carrying a higher margin in order to make a profit. But the guvmint won't let them do that unless they also sell a bunch of econo boxes, and if they were to price those econo boxes to take account of their higher costs, nobody would buy them. No doubt their basic strategy is flawed, but it's flawed in substantial part because current management's hands are tied by all the past gimmes given to their unions. Wages for people not to work! Sound a bit like income tax cuts for people who don't pay income taxes? HUH?? Toyota sells high end hybrids with a nice margin. What's preventing GM from selling decent cars?? Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are willing to talk about going forward. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:22:38 -0500, said: Labor is not even remotely at the core of GM's problems. Perhaps you could take you suggestions for how to make money when you're paying your workers $30 an hour more than the competition to management's attention. I'm sure they'd be all ears. Sell better cars. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: 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. You need to do some homework. Google up "jobs bank." 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. I think perhaps you should 'splain that to the UAW leadership. You need to try your own research suggestions. The additional cost is about $1600 per car. That's a lot. But, they sell crappy cars. The UAW is willing to put "all of the benefits" on the table, according to their pres. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:30:39 -0500, said: I'm just fatigued from all your evasive running around the truth, So what is your version of THE TRUTH, Not at All? What should be done about the Big Three? Throw taxpayer money at them so the UAW bosses can keep their jobs? Dave, you do realize that unions *negotiate* with companies? Both sides *agree* to a contract and sign it. If the company negotiates a contract that kills the company who's fault is that? Cheers Martin |
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote:
On 18 Nov 2008 13:54:02 -0600, Dave wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:42:49 -0500, said: It had ZERO to do with whether the labor was union or non-union, or how much money they were paid. $1,000 an hour for everyone, right? Won't make any difference. The only people making $1000 an hour were in management. Once again you are avoiding the truth. The workers were not making $1000 an hour. If they had, it would have made a difference, but they DIDN'T. YOU have already pegged the difference in wages between Toyota and UAW workers at $30 an hour. Just another dead red herring to throw on the pile. Thirty bucks an hour! Less, much less. Toyota and Honda pay quite well. (shhh, don't tell Dave) Cheers Martin |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:44:47 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are willing to talk about going forward. You just keep telling yourself that, Jon. Unions exempt from anti-trust laws. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
On 18 Nov 2008 17:01:01 -0600, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:11:07 -0500, said: It had ZERO to do with whether the labor was union or non-union, or how much money they were paid. $1,000 an hour for everyone, right? Won't make any difference. The only people making $1000 an hour were in management. Once again you are avoiding the truth. The workers were not making $1000 an hour. If they had, it would have made a difference, but they DIDN'T. YOU have already pegged the difference in wages between Toyota and UAW workers at $30 an hour. Just another dead red herring to throw on the pile. Not a red herring at all. I was simply demonstrating how your claim that the amount paid labor has zero to do with a company's ability to compete is ludicrous. Except we are talking about a specific company, and you went off the deep end with a nonsensical Hail Mary about paying the assembly line workers $1000 an hour. Red Herring. A big stinking Red Herring being ridden hard and put away wet by a straw man. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
On 18 Nov 2008 17:27:02 -0600, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:23:50 -0500, Marty said: So what is your version of THE TRUTH, Not at All? What should be done about the Big Three? Throw taxpayer money at them so the UAW bosses can keep their jobs? Dave, you do realize that unions *negotiate* with companies? Both sides *agree* to a contract and sign it. If the company negotiates a contract that kills the company who's fault is that? Certainly not the taxpayers' fault, is it? Should the taxpayers expect to absorb the cost of the foolishness of the auto company management and the UAW workers who followed their short-sighted leaders? I don't think so. I think you should come up with some scratch and by yourself a new Chevy to help make it work the way it was supposed to work. Buying that cheap used Buick was pretty darned unpatriotic of you. No wonder they are struggling! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com