"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

If sales go up, profits should as well.

Not necessarily.


Why not? the fixed costs remain the same, so there should be higher margins
even.

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:09:52 GMT, Fred Dehl
wrote:

If sales go up, profits should as well. If they don't, shareholders
should replace the board and management.


Tell that to the car companies that had explosive sales growth when
they started selling cars at the "Employee Discount" last summer.



They should have had their management and boards replaced years ago!

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

The guy you voted for in 2000 said that the internal combustion
engine is the greatest threat to mankind, and you're calling the
purchase of its lifeblood "mandatory"?
In a sense, he's correct. In many parts of this country, there an
almost religious aversion to using mass transportation, an idea that's
part of normal life in some countries, and a few of our busier cities.
Even in New York only 10% of commuters use mass transit.

The reasons to not use mass transit are numerous:

- It's slower. The average mass transit commute takes 75% longer than
the
same commute by car.

- It takes quality time away from families. I run errands on my lunch
hour. In my car. If I took mass transit to work, I'd be tied to the
office and have to run errands after work, decreasing my evening
at-home
time (over and above the time lost to the longer commute as described
above).

- It's inconvenient. Unlike cars, mass transit seldom provides
door-to-
door service. So you end up walking in the elements (rain, snow,
extreme
heat) or driving to the station (Hey, isn't the goal of mass transit to
"get us out of our cars"? Oops.)

- It degrades automobile travel. Buses move slowly, are impossible to
pass or see around, and stop every few blocks, slowing down traffic on
major arteries, decreasing fuel economy and increasing pollution
emissions. Plus if you drive to and from the transit station, your car
doesn't have a chance to warm up. This means greater engine wear and
decreased fuel economy.

- It's unsafe. Mass transit has a higher deaths-per-passenger-mile
than
nearly every other method of transportation you can name. Also many
mass
transit stations, centers, and bus stops are nests of criminal
activity.

- It doesn't get us out of our cars. In addition to the need to drive
from home to the station, mass transit doesn't let us combine trips.
Transit won't let you go grocery shopping on your way home. Or get a
haircut. Or visit the doctor. Or pickup your children from school.
With
a car you can do all that in one trip on the way home from work.

The overusage of private vehicles affects us in quite a few negative
ways. At the top of the list is a certain sort of stupidity that
blinds people to the effects of their decisions.
More smug condescension from the elitist left. Go back to your triple
latte and your Oprah-approved book o' lies.

You've proven my point. Meanwhile, how have other countries gotten
around some of the problems you've described? Are you aware of any of
them, or do you prefer to assume that things could not be much better?


Poor Fred.

When I need to get downtown for a morning meeting, I take public
transportation. It's much faster and much cheaper than driving into the
city and paying for parking. We have nine buses a day leaving from a
nearby commuter lot, one returns back at noon, and the others start
leaving downtown at 3 pm. If I want, I can also drive to a Metrorail
station, take the train downtown, and return whenever I like. Also much
cheaper than driving downtown.

My wife commutes on the bus to her downtown office. She usually buys a
10-ride ticket for $40. That's five round trips. Parking downtown is $12
a day in a decent lot. Add to that the cost of fuel, wear and tear on the
car, insurance, and the fact that you can nap, read the paper or chat on
the bus, and driving into the city becomes a losing proposition.


OK, but don't you sometimes have to sit next to negroes or puerto ricans?
I'm really cynical. I think that's a major reason some people don't like
mass transportation. Matter of fact, a few have actually said it to me.


Mass transit works in a few areas in this country. As the mass transit does
not go from and to the places people need to go. If you have to change
buses 3 times, and add another hour to the commute, people will avoid it.
It is costly. If you get a couple people in the car, you can be close to
the price of MT in this country. In Europe, they have better transit, and
is reasonable. In 2001 the Metro in Paris costs about .75 Euro to go
anywhere in the major metropolitan area of Paris. Fast, often running
trains. Compare to Bart in the SF Bay area. $3-5 one way for most trips,
and then you have to catch a bus or two. One line to an area. The Metro,
has several lines going different directions. Where we stayed, there were 2
different line metro stops within 2 blocks. Manhattan Island is one of the
few places where mass transit is done correctly. Lots of trains to Penn and
Grand Central stations, and subway to get to other areas of the city.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

If sales go up, profits should as well.

Not necessarily.


Why not? the fixed costs remain the same, so there should be higher
margins even.


Not exactly. If one laborer produces 60 widgets and hour and you sales
increase to 90 widgets an hour, your profits could possibly decrease in
order to meet production.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:01:00 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

concourse cars are - well, reproductions and not worth the incredible
amounts of money they command. they are for people with too much
money and not enough sense.

I'd like to edge a little closer to your last statement, personally.

I don't care whether they're concourse, I want to drive 'em and dote on
'em.

concourse cars aren't for driving - they are for showing.



I guess that's up to the owner, eh?

Classification doesn't portend utilization.

If I bought a car that was classified concourse, it wouldn't be for the
purpose of showing it.

It would be for the purpose of driving it.

I stand ready for any other smartypants comments you need make.

jps

Some weird Russian dudes in my neighborhood are selling a mint DeLorean.
Shall I give them your email address? :-)

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

Fair enough but have you ever calculated your cost per mile?

Let me help, using your numbers:

"I leased the car. 39 months, $422/mo (includes tax), $1850 out of
pocket."

That comes to $18,308, divided by 40,000 miles = 45.8 cents/mile
before insurance, fuel and maintenance.

If you purchased a Lexus for about $45,000 and drove it 100,000 miles
you'd get about the same numbers but the Lexus would still be worth
somewhere between $5 and $10K, possibly more.

The advantage of leasing is getting a new car every 3 or 4 years with
minimal transaction costs, but it is still cheaper to purchase and
hold if you buy quality.

Using my numbers, the second 100,000 miles is almost free!



Not completely true. If you lease the car, and use the car for business,
you can write off the percentage of the lease vs. the percentage of milage
used for business. If you own the car, you can take depreciation. But the
depreciation is set by the IRS, and for expensive cars, does not cover the
costs. So business owners can write off more of the car expenses with a
lease. Other than the fact, you will need to drive the car a lot for
business, and commute to the office is not part of the cost. Leasing in
just buying with no down payment. NOYB's really high residual value lease,
is a thing of the past. The companies took a huge bath on the residual
value, as well as the sales of new cars. When you had the market flooded
with 2 and 3 year old cars at a discount, a lot of the new buyers, bought
used.

"Don White" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:14:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

But I can assure you that in their latest
entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and
engineering is on par with the best of them again.

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

see - thats what i don't understand. you dont gain anything by
leasing a vehicle for a stated length of time.



I gain a new car every 3-3 1/2 years. If I bought the car, but
financed it,
I'd barely be even in 3 years. If I paid cash, and traded it, I'd
lose
$25k
in depreciation in that time period.


we ordinarily keep our cars for at least 100k if not more than that -
i think the grand marquis my wife had before the town car had 140k on
it when we traded it in.

You're smarter than me. But I've got a soft spot for new cars. Your
way is
of course the smartest way to own a car.

Not necessarily......if you drive exactly the miles that the lease
alllows you every year, it is better to lease, at the end of the lease,
if market value is higher than the buy option, you simply buy it and
sell it, if it is lower, you let the auto company take the loss.


I search for leases with the highest residual value. The car I just
bought had a 59% residual value after 39 months. That's about 20
percentage points too high for what is realistic on that car. But it's
GMAC taking the hit...not me.



I was over to a local Toyota dealer recently and we were talking about
this. The saleslady said they aim for actual market value at the end of
the lease. Their higher payment schedule must reflect a more accurate cost
of the value you receive. Better I guess if you plan on buying the
vehicle at the end of the lease period.
Not sure if leasing is a good option for someone like me who drives 10K -
12K km per year.

Are you kidding!? You're the ideal candidate. Get a low mileage (10,000
mile per year) lease, and you'll save at least $150/month over financing the
same vehicle.

Consider this:
My car has an MSRP of just under $42k.
I paid $1800 to the dealer when I picked it up...plus another $422 for the
first month payment.

That's just under $18,500 in total out of pocket and monthly payments.

If I financed the same car for 66 months, rolled the sales tax into the
payment, and paid out the same $1800 when I picked up the car, my payment
would have been nearly $700/month. $700/mo * 39 months=$27,300. Add the
$1800, and you're at nearly $29k to drive that car for 39 months.


On a 66 month finance deal, with very little money down, you end up owing
after 3 years about the same amount as the car is worth. In other words,
you have zero equity and still owe $20k on a 3 year old car. And you've
paid out almost $10k more in cash over that time period!

The only way purchasing the car makes sense is if you keep it a year or two
past the last payment (ie--7 or 8 years). And hope that nothing breaks when
it's out of warranty.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Frankly, the Democrats did not field even ONE 'Swift Boat Veterans' type
ad campaign,


NOYB wrote:
Moveon.org


Yeah right.

1- was it's budget $100 million +

2- was it funded by blatant partisans

You're kidding, right?



3- did it publish outright lies & slander based on fiction, aimed directly
at the most prominent Republicans

Of course it did.



The answer to all three is 'not even close' so therefor it's hardly equal,
is it?

The actual answer was "yes" to 2 of the 3 questions.

It may be "yes" to all of the questions, but I haven't the time to lookup
what their budget was.



Or is your moral position 'the Democrats occasionally don't tell the whole
boring truth, so therefor is't OK for Republicans (espeically the most
radical fundie hard-right faction) to scream lies all the time'?

It's a rather odd situation for the party of "morality and responsibility"
to be in.


I really don't know how to curtail blatant political advertising via special
interest groups, and at the same time protect their first amendment rights.

Of course, it'd all be simpler if we just did away with the Bill of Rights.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

The guy you voted for in 2000 said that the internal combustion
engine is the greatest threat to mankind, and you're calling the
purchase of its lifeblood "mandatory"?
In a sense, he's correct. In many parts of this country, there an
almost religious aversion to using mass transportation, an idea
that's
part of normal life in some countries, and a few of our busier
cities.
Even in New York only 10% of commuters use mass transit.

The reasons to not use mass transit are numerous:

- It's slower. The average mass transit commute takes 75% longer than
the
same commute by car.

- It takes quality time away from families. I run errands on my lunch
hour. In my car. If I took mass transit to work, I'd be tied to the
office and have to run errands after work, decreasing my evening
at-home
time (over and above the time lost to the longer commute as described
above).

- It's inconvenient. Unlike cars, mass transit seldom provides
door-to-
door service. So you end up walking in the elements (rain, snow,
extreme
heat) or driving to the station (Hey, isn't the goal of mass transit
to
"get us out of our cars"? Oops.)

- It degrades automobile travel. Buses move slowly, are impossible to
pass or see around, and stop every few blocks, slowing down traffic on
major arteries, decreasing fuel economy and increasing pollution
emissions. Plus if you drive to and from the transit station, your
car
doesn't have a chance to warm up. This means greater engine wear and
decreased fuel economy.

- It's unsafe. Mass transit has a higher deaths-per-passenger-mile
than
nearly every other method of transportation you can name. Also many
mass
transit stations, centers, and bus stops are nests of criminal
activity.

- It doesn't get us out of our cars. In addition to the need to drive
from home to the station, mass transit doesn't let us combine trips.
Transit won't let you go grocery shopping on your way home. Or get a
haircut. Or visit the doctor. Or pickup your children from school.
With
a car you can do all that in one trip on the way home from work.

The overusage of private vehicles affects us in quite a few negative
ways. At the top of the list is a certain sort of stupidity that
blinds people to the effects of their decisions.
More smug condescension from the elitist left. Go back to your triple
latte and your Oprah-approved book o' lies.

You've proven my point. Meanwhile, how have other countries gotten
around some of the problems you've described? Are you aware of any of
them, or do you prefer to assume that things could not be much better?


Poor Fred.

When I need to get downtown for a morning meeting, I take public
transportation. It's much faster and much cheaper than driving into the
city and paying for parking. We have nine buses a day leaving from a
nearby commuter lot, one returns back at noon, and the others start
leaving downtown at 3 pm. If I want, I can also drive to a Metrorail
station, take the train downtown, and return whenever I like. Also much
cheaper than driving downtown.

My wife commutes on the bus to her downtown office. She usually buys a
10-ride ticket for $40. That's five round trips. Parking downtown is $12
a day in a decent lot. Add to that the cost of fuel, wear and tear on
the car, insurance, and the fact that you can nap, read the paper or
chat on the bus, and driving into the city becomes a losing proposition.


OK, but don't you sometimes have to sit next to negroes or puerto ricans?
I'm really cynical. I think that's a major reason some people don't like
mass transportation. Matter of fact, a few have actually said it to me.


Mass transit works in a few areas in this country. As the mass transit
does not go from and to the places people need to go. If you have to
change buses 3 times, and add another hour to the commute, people will
avoid it. It is costly. If you get a couple people in the car, you can be
close to the price of MT in this country. In Europe, they have better
transit, and is reasonable. In 2001 the Metro in Paris costs about .75
Euro to go anywhere in the major metropolitan area of Paris. Fast, often
running trains. Compare to Bart in the SF Bay area. $3-5 one way for
most trips, and then you have to catch a bus or two. One line to an area.
The Metro, has several lines going different directions. Where we stayed,
there were 2 different line metro stops within 2 blocks. Manhattan Island
is one of the few places where mass transit is done correctly. Lots of
trains to Penn and Grand Central stations, and subway to get to other
areas of the city.


There is a reason mass transit works in Europe and not here. European
cities developed centuries ago in tight dense areas, with the remaining land
used for agriculture. Streets for the most part are narrow and not good for
auto traffic. Highways do not extend to the city center for the most part
either. On the other hand, US cities developed for the most part (except
for a few cities like NYC and Boston) after the rise of the automobile so
the demographics are entirely different and are not as well suited for mass
transit. Also, because of those differences, the cultures, work habits etc.
have developed differently as well.....wrt how one buy groceries, entertains
etc.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

Fair enough but have you ever calculated your cost per mile?

Let me help, using your numbers:

"I leased the car. 39 months, $422/mo (includes tax), $1850 out of
pocket."

That comes to $18,308, divided by 40,000 miles = 45.8 cents/mile
before insurance, fuel and maintenance.

If you purchased a Lexus for about $45,000 and drove it 100,000 miles
you'd get about the same numbers but the Lexus would still be worth
somewhere between $5 and $10K, possibly more.

The advantage of leasing is getting a new car every 3 or 4 years with
minimal transaction costs, but it is still cheaper to purchase and
hold if you buy quality.

Using my numbers, the second 100,000 miles is almost free!



Not completely true. If you lease the car, and use the car for business,
you can write off the percentage of the lease vs. the percentage of milage
used for business. If you own the car, you can take depreciation. But
the depreciation is set by the IRS, and for expensive cars, does not cover
the costs. So business owners can write off more of the car expenses with
a lease. Other than the fact, you will need to drive the car a lot for
business, and commute to the office is not part of the cost. Leasing in
just buying with no down payment. NOYB's really high residual value
lease, is a thing of the past. The companies took a huge bath on the
residual value, as well as the sales of new cars. When you had the market
flooded with 2 and 3 year old cars at a discount, a lot of the new buyers,
bought used.

Nobody was advertising the deal I got. It was on Cadillac's website, and
not very easy to find. I printed it out, took it the dealer, and they said
it was the first that they had heard of it (despite the fact that it was
the last week of a 5 week ad campaign).

My dealer's "deal" included an additional $2500 down, and another $50/month.
I told them I'd call all the Cadillac dealers from Tampa south to Miami,
until someone honored the advertised deal on Caddy's website. They of
course wrote the deal.