![]() |
GM loses big-time
|
GM loses big-time
Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:17:45 -0400, hk wrote: In later years, the Johnson and Evinrude brand names had some products identical under the cover and some different. I recall a 5-1/2 hp Johnson, a 7-1/2 hp Evinrude, a 10 hp Johnson, a 15 and 18 hp Evinrude. I believe both lines had 25 hp engines. I think from that point on, both lines had the same engines under different hoods and in different colors. We had a 51/2 Evinrude. It was a fiftieth anniversary model, whatever year that was. There were no sizes unique to either brand. The only discernable difference on any of them was the outer cover. I was there and went to the boat stores and everything. Did you get WAFA's "my father" story, too? It's legendary. |
GM loses big-time
"Canuck57" wrote in message news:RROkk.50596$nD.3370@pd7urf1no... "Eisboch" wrote in message Although dismal financial results, the bulk of the "losses" are write offs and charges to re-tool for the manufacture of more smaller, fuel efficient cars for the US market. They have been retooling for 4 decades. WTF. Sounds horrible, and I am not making light of the problems, but it's not as bad as the media (and you) are making it out to be. Worse, bankrupt GM. GM is toast. I'll try again. Automakers build what the consumer buys. Eisboch |
GM loses big-time
"Canuck57" wrote in news:IQOkk.50593$nD.27486
@pd7urf1no: At least if I buy a Tata Nano for $4000 I know I am getting a cheap car. Dave, do they have Nanos in Canada, yet? I'm seriously considering flying to Canada to buy a Smart ForTwo DIESEL they won't sell me in South Carolina. I found out I can import it as it is on the EPA list of excluded cars way back to 2004 Smart Cars so bringing it home isn't a problem. They sure don't lose their value very much. Used 2005 Smart Diesels are $CN12000 in Toronto. |
GM loses big-time
|
GM loses big-time
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:57:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
I'll try again. Automakers build what the consumer buys. Eisboch That's true up to a point but GM and Ford pigged out at the party. They knew very well they were making much higher margins on their big vehicles, and as a result, put way too little funding into R & D for fuel efficiency. The handwriting has been on the wall for quite awhile for anyone who cared to look, but GM and Ford had their head in the sand. Is there any doubt that they could have produced high quality efficient vehicles, similar to Toyota and Honda, if they had put an effort into it? |
GM loses big-time
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:57:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: I'll try again. Automakers build what the consumer buys. Eisboch That's true up to a point but GM and Ford pigged out at the party. They knew very well they were making much higher margins on their big vehicles, and as a result, put way too little funding into R & D for fuel efficiency. The handwriting has been on the wall for quite awhile for anyone who cared to look, but GM and Ford had their head in the sand. Is there any doubt that they could have produced high quality efficient vehicles, similar to Toyota and Honda, if they had put an effort into it? And Toyota and Honda have also taken a bad road. Looking at new vehicle for SWMBO. Liked the Acura MDX. People complaining about mileage. 12-18 mpg. Look at the new Tundra. Same size as an F150. 14 mpg highway. Toyota Highlander Hybrid. $49k. Like the look and feel of the Saturn GreenVue. 32 mpg highway, 20+ around town. $25k. My daughter bought a new Sequoia last year. $48k, and probably gets the same crappy mileage as the same size Ford Expedition. About 14 around town, and 16 highway. Look at all the ads for the Japanese cars. Touting the performance. |
GM loses big-time
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... Although dismal financial results, the bulk of the "losses" are write offs and charges to re-tool for the manufacture of more smaller, fuel efficient cars for the US market. Sounds horrible, and I am not making light of the problems, but it's not as bad as the media (and you) are making it out to be. Sounds worse actually. Posting a quarterly loss that is more than twice as much as your market cap well, in my books is serious bankruptcy coming on. GM's troubles are understated, and in fact it is probably too late for GM as we know it to come back from this. My guess is GM will be broken apart. The US side will just go bankrupt while if GM has any profitable divisions off shore they will be bought piecemeal by others. Target price, $0.20 as a speculation buy. |
GM loses big-time
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message ... hk wrote: Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message . .. I *love* it. It tells me Wal-Mart is scared. Wal-Mart is among the most exploitative major employers in the United States. The so-called "health insurance" it "offers" its employees is a fraud. It is a major violator of wage-hour laws. It is the major seller of crap ChiComm products in the USA. It seems to me that Wal-Mart has a specific goal to remain a low-cost outlet for limited income families and/or those that like to pinch pennys when buying basic necessities. In your quote you left out the part whereby by unionizing, Wal-Mart would need to raise prices and lay off employees. Why not let the public chose where they want to shop and work? Eisboch Shop wherever the hell you want. Free choice in shopping is fine if the "public" has the ability to have influence on how its area is developed. In our part of our rural, conservative county, we have an older Wal-Mart store (that I've never been in), but we stopped Wal-Mart dead in its tracks with its plans to built a "super Wal-Mart" in our area. Wal-Mart spent a ton of money on PR and political bribes to force it way. All it took to defeat Wal-Mart was a number of petitions signed by enough voters to let the county pols know they'd be out on their asses if they approved building the new store. What Harry is really saying: Free choice in shopping is fine as long as I can tell people what their choices are. The same way unions work. |
GM loses big-time
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message . .. I am trying to figure out why Harry is relishing the fact that any company is having a downturn. Harry might be like me, a former stock holder of GM. Fortunately I got out without too much of a loss. GM is the kind of company you want to see smashed, bankrupt and broken appart. Between incopentant lethargic managment and dumb union rant the GM company has been run into the ground ripping off shareholders for too many years. No one believes the same promises made by management and unions 20-30 years ago today do they? It has a negative impact on individuals who have stock in the company, retirees who depend on dividends for part of their income, it has a negative impact on the employees and the local and/or national economy. I guess Harry just enjoys seeing others hurt. I was lucky enough to get out at $30. I feel for those who buy an hold. GM is a stellar let down and a prime example of what is wrong with corporate management in North America. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com