 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / January 2009Will America be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail??
Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign companies?? Are they really that stupid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe0TOEc6EJs > Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign > companies?? Are they really that stupid. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe0TOEc6EJs We can only hope so. They were here long before the foreign companies. They should have been able to stay ahead of the competition. Too much protectionism, too much union, too much of many things made them fat and lazy. They deserve to go. It doesn't mean the end of the big three nor the end of the world. It only means new ownership. businesses fail and new ones spring up. The best survive, the worst go down.. Why would you want it any other way? >> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >spring up. The best survive, the worst go down.. Why would you want it any >other way? Because the "new" one will not be a domestic company. It will likely be a Chinese company. We already see the US headed for the dustbin of history due to the stupidity of various trade agreements that do NOT protect our OWN industries. You seemingly want to hurry that process along. >>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > protect our OWN industries. You seemingly want to hurry that process > along. There is no advantage having a domestic industry that loses money and has to be supported by taxes. Those taxes have to come from people and industries that ARE making money.All this sort of bailout will do is add greater risk to the GOOD industries eventually failing and heading over seas. It's plain to see you don't understand economics. What needs to be done is help the winning industries and get rid of the losing industries. Doing things your way will kill the whole works. Or is that too difficult to understand? >>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >things your way will kill the whole works. Or is that too difficult to >understand? You don't understand that it's not just the "big three" having problems. The 'imports' are getting help from their parent companies also. It seems "foreign" countries understand teh value of maintaining a manufacturing base whereas in the US everything is based on next weeks stock price. The domestic auto industry was turning around and got hit by the bush depression like a ton of other industries. It's silly to pretend they exist in a vacuum and just ignore all the externalities. Putting more millions out of work is stupid and short sighted but there seems to be plenty of cheerleaders for that simply because they hate unions and other stilly reasons. >>>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > stupid and short sighted but there seems to be plenty of cheerleaders > for that simply because they hate unions and other stilly reasons. Why call it the "Bush depression". Economic policies started by President Carter and reinforced by President Clinton are the root of the mortgage and finance problems the country is experiencing today. Those policies of forcing lending institutions to give mortgages to under qualified borrowers led to the recession we are experiencing today. Don't blame President Bush. "McAlisters" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote : > Why call it the "Bush depression". > Economic policies started by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > under qualified borrowers led to the recession we are experiencing > today. Don't blame President Bush. Marxists hate Bush, facts don't matter. > "McAlisters" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Marxists hate Bush, facts don't matter. And traitors love to support japanese manufacturers. >>>>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > under qualified borrowers led to the recession we are experiencing today. > Don't blame President Bush. Well if it were started by Carter and Clinton the other presidents had 20 years in the interim to fix it, but they set back on the a.ses and watched it happen, especially Bush. This came to head under his watch where as he had plenty on time to do something about it. "QuickDraw McGraw" <QDME@yahoo.cum> wrote : > Well if it were started by Carter and Clinton the other presidents > had 20 years in the interim to fix it, but they set back on the a.ses > and watched it happen, especially Bush. This came to head under his > watch where as he had plenty on time to do something about it. I guess he was too busy getting bashed by the marxists. Who Killed the Electric Car http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car/70052424?trkid=222336&l nkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=1018379443_0_0 That is one opinion. The US government killed the GM electric car The real reason was, GMs electric cars were built under an exemption to US EPA, NHTSA and other US regulations, as experimental vehicles. As with all road worthy experimental vehicles they could not be sold to the public. Like the Chrysler turbine powered cars befor it, GM could only loan or lease the cars for a limited time, after which they had to be destroyed. > Who Killed the Electric Car > http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car/70052424?trkid=222336&l nkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=1018379443_0_0 Who Killed the Electric Car http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car/70052424?trkid=222336&l nkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=1018379443_0_0 > "QuickDraw McGraw" <QDME@yahoo.cum> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I guess he was too busy getting bashed by the marxists. If he can't take the bashing he shouldn't be president. >>>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > stupid and short sighted but there seems to be plenty of cheerleaders > for that simply because they hate unions and other stilly reasons. I fully understand that there are upstream industries as well. That doesn't change the fact that Detroit was putting out a product that the consumers didn't really want. Those errors in judgement by the companies HAVE to be corrected. Throwing money at them doesn't solve the problems. It masks the problems and delays the necessary changes into a future date. The capital and people have been deployed in the wrong direction. The labor and capital must move towards the strong winning industries where the country is already competitive. If you bail the losers you must take the money from the winning parts of the economy. That weakens them making it more difficult for those industries to compete against foreign companies. Not really what you want for the long term. This sort of protectionism is what has been slowly eating away at American industries for decades. If your desire is to keep America strong don't destroy the industries are a able to survive in a tough competitive world. I believe I heard recently there were once 500 auto companies. There are now three and maybe some small insignificant ones. Would it have been wise to deploy all resources to keep those 500 alive to this day? The people that were employed in the 500 have moved on to other jobs. No different today. Painful it is. Delaying the date of correction compounds future pain. >>>>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >change the fact that Detroit was putting out a product that the consumers >didn't really want. Much of the reason they "didn't want them" was a fiction that they quality was poor. Mostly the same people who continually bad mouthed the big three are the same one cheering on their demise. And the consumers DID want Trucks. Had this major depression not hit at least GM and Ford would have easily been able to turn around their car lines with financial support from their truck sales over the next several years. What's sad is that the problems were well on the way to being solved and making the US Domestic Auto Industry competitive across the board. That *could* continue with some loans from the gvt. >Those errors in judgement by the companies HAVE to be >corrected. Throwing money at them doesn't solve the problems. See above, they were being corrected. It masks the >problems and delays the necessary changes into a future date. The capital >and people have been deployed in the wrong direction. Stop living in the past. The labor and capital >must move towards the strong winning industries where the country is already >competitive. If you bail the losers you must take the money from the winning >parts of the economy. That weakens them making it more difficult for those >industries to compete against foreign companies. If they go bankrupt the ripples will be far worse then keeping them afloat for a few years till the changes already in the works kick in. >Not really what you want for the long term. This sort of protectionism is >what has been slowly eating away at American industries for decades. In this case it's not protectionism, it's just good business for the country. A case can be made for protectionism however. The US is losing it's manufacturing base and that's not a good thing. If your >desire is to keep America strong don't destroy the industries are a able to >survive in a tough competitive world. No one is talking about destroying anything except you and the other haters of American industries. >I believe I heard recently there were once 500 auto companies. There are now >three and maybe some small insignificant ones. Would it have been wise to >deploy all resources to keep those 500 alive to this day? Has anyone suggested that? No. When you have allowed your domestic base to dwindle down to the last three perhaps it's time to wake the f&%k up however. Perhaps you think it would be good to outsource all our spy satellites to foreign manufacture and control if it would be cheaper. I'm sure China and Russia would be very happy to submit some very low cost bids to provide that service. Would you think that's a good idea? If not, why do you think other major defense and security related aspects of manufacturing should be abandoned domestically? The people that >were employed in the 500 have moved on to other jobs. No different today. >Painful it is. Delaying the date of correction compounds future pain. It's vastly different today. Those 500 tiny companies did not all fail simultaneously putting many millions of people out of work. Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : > Much of the reason they "didn't want them" was a fiction that they > quality was poor. Fiction? I was looking at the ratings charts in Consumer Reports. > Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : > >> Much of the reason they "didn't want them" was a fiction that they >> quality was poor. > > Fiction? I was looking at the ratings charts in Consumer Reports. And what did it say about Buick, or the Chevy Malibu? Or the Ford safety records? "QuickDraw McGraw" <QDME@yahoo.cum> wrote : >> Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And what did it say about Buick, or the Chevy Malibu? Or the Ford > safety records? All I remember was that Toyota got the best overall ratings, and the big 3 looked like crap. > "QuickDraw McGraw" <QDME@yahoo.cum> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Oh then you mean you last read it in the 80s or 90s. >Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : > >> Much of the reason they "didn't want them" was a fiction that they >> quality was poor. > >Fiction? I was looking at the ratings charts in Consumer Reports. Like I said, fiction. CR is all self reporting by people who hate American cars just because they are American cars. As people have noted in the past, when there are "imports" that are sold under both an imported name plate and an American Nameplate, the ratings for the imported version typically are noticeably higher then for the American version. Same car, same assembly line, only difference is a few trim pieces yet the American version somehow isn't as good..... If you look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >>Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Like I said, fiction. CR is all self reporting by people who hate > American cars just because they are American cars. Oh, a conspiracy, I see. LOL. >Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Oh, a conspiracy, I see. LOL. Not at all. just the effect of good marketing combined with a strange desire by many American's to willfully hate American cars. It's become a badge of "honor" or something to avoid an American car these days. If you trade your Chevy in on a Toyota people say "good deal", if you trade your Toyota in on a Chevy people look at you funny. Yet, as I said, the JD Power Ratings show very little objective difference between them in terms of quality. We have hundreds of Fords and Chevies and Dodges in our fleet and there simply are not many problems with the Fords and Chevies (can't be quite as complimentary toward the Dodges but they are ok). We had Toyotas for a couple years. Really was not much difference. If the toyotas had an edge in having something break as often it was made up in the higher cost for the parts. I have been telling guys in several NG that for several years, to no avail. Owners tend to believer the band they prefer is the best. I owed a fleet service business for almost ten years. When I sold it I has 26 shops in six eastern states. We serviced just about every brand on the market for the federal and state governments as well a large and small corporate fleet and luxury fleets. As you probably know, because of federal tax deprecation laws fleets keep their vehicles which just another "Tool" used in their business, for five years or 300K WOF. Because they must do so they provide that tool the finest in preventive maintenance. Unlike rental fleets, where vehicle are their product, there vehicles are sold within a year of purchase with less than 12,000 miles on them. The only "service" they see is, generally, a wash job and topping off of the fluids. Fleets look at the total cost of ownership, including the costs of acquiring, insuring, maintaining, repairing and replacing that tool, just like any other tool. Our meticulous service record showed their is relatively little difference among domestic brands and ANY of the import brands. They ALL offer around the same discounts to fleets, but import are more expensive to insure, maintain and repair and they ALL need to be repaired at some point. The vehicles of choice for fleets are Ford Vehicles. Over the past ten to fifteen years Ford has controlled around 80% of the fleet market. Believe it or not the Korean cars control the courier fleets, who buy most of the small and midget cars, not the Japanese. Courier cars can easily be run up to 100,000, miles is less than a year. >>Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > something break as often it was made up in the higher cost for the > parts. hmm Its stupid to buy a foreign car and a genius if you buy from the big 3. You got me there Einstein. >hmm Its stupid to buy a foreign car and a genius if you buy from the >big 3. You got me there Einstein. You are one sharp cookie, I'm sure it would take nothing less then an Einstein to "get you". > >hmm Its stupid to buy a foreign car and a genius if you buy from the > >big 3. You got me there Einstein. > > You are one sharp cookie, I'm sure it would take nothing less then an > Einstein to "get you". That's what the subject is trying to say. America should get smart and buy from detroit thus save the us auto industry. Buying from them really wont solve the problem, sales are low and that's one of the key ingredient to their failure, but there are other reasons being discussed. One of them being the UAW, allegedly they contribute to the overhead cost, well of course there still is the issue of too much spending like the jets of the CEOs. Anyway I didnt buy from the big3 simply becuase of the exterior & interior styling of the big 3 doesn't appeal to me. >> You are one sharp cookie, I'm sure it would take nothing less then an >> Einstein to "get you". > > That's what the subject is trying to say. America should get smart and > buy from detroit thus save the us auto industry. Perhaps when they start making cars people want, and with good parts, I'll give up my Toyotas and buy US. The only thing I ever considered buying from an American dealer was an Escort and an HHR. The Escort was uncomfortable (same size as a Coroola? Hmmm...) and the HHR couldn't get out of it's own way. I asked the dealer to round up one with a 5-speed and the HO engine. That was in '06...I'm still waiting... So I bought a Scion tC. 5-speed. 165HP VVTi engine. Can much more than get out of it's own way. > I have been telling guys in several NG that for several years, to no avail. > Owners tend to believer the band they prefer is the best. I owed a fleet > service business for almost ten years. When I sold it I has 26 shops in six > eastern states. I haven't bought a foreign brand vehicle yet, but my next vehicle will probably be one because Ford, GM, and Chrysler won't give me what I want. GM is delaying their dual hybrid Saturn Vue SUV to save costs. I am tired of waiting. -- Ron > I haven't bought a foreign brand vehicle yet, but my next vehicle will > probably be one because Ford, GM, and Chrysler won't give me what I > want. This is the biggest problem with American cars. The other is parts that are made to fail. Some American cars I have considered buying are the Vega (ooo...), the Citation X11 (ohhhhh...) and the Fiero (aw, Jeeze!) I always chose a Toyota instead and never regretted the decision. Maybe they could file bankruptcy and let Toyota and Honda take over the big 3. What good would that do? Import sales are down as well. In November Fords sales were down 30% and Toyota was down 33%. While Toyota is having a problem getting ride of Tundras at near giveaway prices, Ford has added a THIRD shift to one of it F150 plants and a second shift is starting next week at another F150 plant. In the meantime Toyota, state funded, brand new Tundra plant in Texas is shut down for three weeks and their state trained employees are laid off LOL > Maybe they could file bankruptcy and let Toyota and Honda take over the > big 3. "Ashton Crusher" <demi@moore.net> wrote in message > Like I said, fiction. CR is all self reporting by people who hate > American cars just because they are American cars. As people have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference > between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. I dont buy that completely, Ashton. Neither does Bob Lutz, who admitted during the GM documentary the other day that GM had gone through a period of substandard quality and desirability. It is refreshing that he owned up to it, and has been working to bring the line to an unquestionably high quality status. I can believe someone who admits there was a problem and is really committed to fixing it. I have no empathy with someone like Ric Wagoner who talks in various dialects of bullshit and political correctness. >"Ashton Crusher" <demi@moore.net> wrote in message >> Like I said, fiction. CR is all self reporting by people who hate [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >to fixing it. I have no empathy with someone like Ric Wagoner who talks in >various dialects of bullshit and political correctness. Sure, there WAS a time when quality could have been better. I'm talking about the last several years. Look at the JD Power ratings and convert them back to problems PER CAR instead of per hundred cars and you get a much more accurate picture of the difference an average owner will experience. For a Toyota they might have 1.3 problems in the first year. For Ford they might have 1.4 problems. For the typical buyer it's a meaningless difference. If you were buying 1000's of cars it "might" tell you something useful in terms of how much time you might have the lot boy shuttling cars back and forth for warranty service but other then that is still essentially meaningless. the ONLY company that really would care is the company that pays the warranty claims, i.e. Ford, etc. But with the JD Power info that's published you can't even tell if there's a meaningful difference there because you don't know the COST of the 1.3 Toyota problems compared to the cost of the 1.4 Ford problems. If Toyota repairs cost 30% more then the "quality/cost" equation gets a lot fuzzier then the picture you get when you read that Toyota Quality is 130 and Ford is 140 and people think WOW, a 10 point difference!!!. . Look at the JD Power ratings > and convert them back to problems PER CAR instead of per hundred cars > and you get a much more accurate picture of the difference an average > owner will experience. ?! > "Ashton Crusher" <demi@moore.net> wrote in message >> Like I said, fiction. CR is all self reporting by people who hate [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > in > various dialects of bullshit and political correctness. We all know that, its no secret that the 80s were not the decade for the best American cars, not to mention the mid to late 70s with vegas and pintos. But that was 20 or 30 years ago. But I have always owned American and I never seem to have a problem running my cars up to 170 or 80 thou. miles before I decide to sell, and I never seem to get nickeled and dimed either. I guess you can say I have been a happy customer. "trak" <trakp@army.mil> wrote in message news:49336716$0$10638 > We all know that, its no secret that the 80s were not the decade for the > best American cars, not to mention the mid to late 70s with vegas and > pintos. But that was 20 or 30 years ago. But I have always owned American > and I never seem to have a problem running my cars up to 170 or 80 thou. > miles before I decide to sell, and I never seem to get nickeled and dimed > either. I guess you can say I have been a happy customer. There are degrees of unhappiness with some of these products. I have had GM cars I enjoyed, but nickled and dimed me unmercifully. I have not had ONE that was acceptably troublefree over the period of time that I owned them. (normally 100, 000 miles and 6-8 years). Bob Lutz admitted that GM had been guilty of this. Now, I would almost consider buying another....maybe when the bankruptcy talk is settled. >>Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference > between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. Yep CR looked like real idiots when they reviewed 2 twin cars, one I think was the Pontiac Vibe, then they reviewed I think the Matrix which I think was Toyota. They didnt have sense to know that the Vibe and Matrix are identical cars coming right off the same assembly line. Except one is badged as Pontiac and the other badged as Toyota. The Vibe got low reviews but they gave the Matrix high reviews. They looked like real idiots when they put their notes together and remebered thet were the same vehicle. CR has little real credibility. >>>Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > they put their notes together and remebered thet were the same vehicle. CR > has little real credibility. I defy you to identify the CR issue in which you alledge this happened. In rare cases CR will test such "rebadged" models; but always identify them as such. Because they have NEVER found significant differences, they usually just test one and then identify other brands which are esentially the same vehicle. You are, in short, a liar. >>Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Like I said, fiction. CR is all self reporting by people who hate > American cars just because they are American cars. So they bought American cars just so they could lie about them? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? As people have > noted in the past, when there are "imports" that are sold under both > an imported name plate and an American Nameplate, the ratings for the > imported version typically are noticeably higher then for the American > version Bullshit. . Same car, same assembly line, only difference is a few trim > pieces yet the American version somehow isn't as good..... If you > look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference > between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. > So they bought American cars just so they could lie about them? > Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? The America twits are stuck in their toddler tantrum as a necessary result of child abuse. This is why you get people like the Idiot In Chief, Georgie Porgy Bush ... who is blind. He is stupid. He is shortsighted in every way he looks, behind or in front of him. In HIS WORLD .. he is SUCCESSFULL .. he did the Culture War .. he killed the USA and he put the Obamabush into office. Bush the Worst keeps on for the next 4 years of more DEATH, DEBT, DESTRUCTION in the form of Obamabush. President MABUS ... is the foxing white boys club, and he has foxing white girls to make sure there is no change, no transparency, just foxing them to death. It is what the toddler tantrum wants to do 90% of the time ... is fox things up, fox around, get foxed, foxing kill things. So you get Jonestown ... kristian koolaid ... Bush the Worst is a tee-totaler ... not one day of recovery ... and he says Wall Street got DRUNK while he was serving. yeppers ... you trying to talk to Joe the Plumber and give him a clue how stupid he is ... and how poor his judgment is. The sick stupid fox .. voted for Bush twice. The GOPerps have bad judgement and the American People have bad judgement, they are all stuck in their toddler tantrum. They are angry little children, petulent, who are stubborn, and there is no way they are going to learn about love, learn about families, learn about making good medicine, learn about how to make a good clean happy life where it is win win win for everyone in the family. They are greedy snotty little sh.ts ... George Bush is an example of the ugly American. Shoe him outta office ... and shoe Obamabush into office. Wave your shoes at Obamabush ... and egg on Bubble Boy. They are both going to Jonestown ... can't stop them ... like trying to stop them from drinking koolaid .. they are stuck in their toddler tantrum. Love is a pain they avoid ... that is the problem ... and the solution sorry to say. Have to go through your pain to find your happiness here in Purgatory. It is how Purgatory works. Stupid people get the pain in the end eventually, and then they smarten up. When Brother Pat Robertson's Spearchucking God reaches out and touches your arse .. let me know when you get the point. ObamaBush ... is a kristian koolaid drinker. Black Nazi Church ... White Nazi Church ... Homo Nazi Church .. it all goes on ... all toddler tantrum religions of judgement, expectation, justification, invalidation and magical thinking. George Bush all the way !!! Bow down to the Serpent Shaft of Moses from his jealous God the Father of talking FIRE that makes babies with His daughters. So ... you know how silly that sounds ??? For these stupid sick foxs that is real to them, they have sugar plums, faireys, and easter bunnies in their heads ... it is real sh.t to them. They are nutters is to harsh .. they are stuck in their toddler tantrum and are emotionally immature, they have poor judgement, they lack skill sets that healthy people have. They never grew up in love sorry to say. So .. yeah ... they are stupid, or present as stupid. Gerogie porgie ... remember ... you need an example of what stupid looks like or what an adult stuck in their toddler tanturm looks and sounds like. Obamabush is the same way ... he vetos stoping Bush the Worst bailout of no transparency, no change. President MABUS is foxing you straight up now. sumbuddie wear blind sea Actually if you look at CR reports you will discover ALL cars have a defect ratio of around 2%, the same defect ratio for ALL other manufactured products. That is why they ALL offer a warranty, even rolls Royce. The odds are, no matter which one you buy you are far more likely to get one of the 98% that are not defective, than one of the 2% that are. LOL >>>Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference >> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. > Actually if you look at CR reports you will discover ALL cars have a defect > ratio of around 2%, the same defect ratio for ALL other manufactured > products. Really? Then why does JD Power and Assoc. report about 118 defects per 100 vehicles? That is a defect ratio of 118%. http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008063 When you get a f.cking clue, let us know, old man. Jeff > That is why they ALL offer a warranty, even rolls Royce. The > odds are, no matter which one you buy you are far more likely to get one of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >> look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference > >> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. 118 per hundred is less than 2%, dummy LOL On Jan 15, 5:50 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Actually if you look at CR reports you will discover ALL cars have a > defect > ratio of around 2%, the same defect ratio for ALL other manufactured > products. Really? Then why does JD Power and Assoc. report about 118 defects per 100 vehicles? That is a defect ratio of 118%. http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008063 When you get a f.cking clue, let us know, old man. Jeff > That is why they ALL offer a warranty, even rolls Royce. The > odds are, no matter which one you buy you are far more likely to get one [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >> look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference > >> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. depends on what you define as "defect rate." If a product as a whole is considered "defective" if it has a defect, then that's quite a bit greater than 2% (how much we can't tell, because one vehicle might have five defects and then four more might have none, for instance.) If you consider that as "number of individual defects per vehicle" then you are correct. Personally, I'd like to think that if I shelled out 10x what I normally pay for a car to get a *brand new* vehicle that I could reasonably expect a vehicle with ZERO defects... nate > 118 per hundred is less than 2%, dummy LOL > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>>> look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference >>>> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list.  Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel Get real, 2% is the average failure rate for ALL manufactured products, that is why they ALL offer a warranty, even Rolls Royce > depends on what you define as "defect rate." > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >>>>> look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference >>>>> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. > Get real, 2% is the average failure rate for ALL manufactured products, > that is why they ALL offer a warranty, even Rolls Royce Really? Then why is the failure rate for iPhones around 5% and the failure rate higher for other devices? A single number doesn't describe the failure rate for all products. The failure rate varies markedly, based on various factors like the type of product, who manufactures it, who uses it and where it is used. And gee, what do you mean by failure rate? The rate depends on how it is defined. For example, one might define failure rate differently for a car battery than the battery in my MacBook. And the rate depends on the how long it is measured. The failure rate of tires during the first 30,000 mi might be say 10%. But, during the first 100,000 mi, it is about 100%. Failure rate requires a definition, and that definition would be different for different products. THere is no way a single number, e.g., 0.02, can describe the failure rate for all manufactured products. The failure rate for cars is going to be different than the failure rate of notebook paper, which is another manufactured product. And, as I showed before, cars have an average failure rate of 118%. Jeff http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10092377-94.html Get a clue. Jeff > > depends on what you define as "defect rate." > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. > >http://members.cox.net/njnagel What part of "AVERAGE failure rate for ALL manufactured products," did you not understand? Oh, I forget you don't understand statistical averaging On Jan 16, 8:14 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Get real, 2% is the average failure rate for ALL manufactured products, > that is why they ALL offer a warranty, even Rolls Royce Really? Then why is the failure rate for iPhones around 5% and the failure rate higher for other devices? A single number doesn't describe the failure rate for all products. The failure rate varies markedly, based on various factors like the type of product, who manufactures it, who uses it and where it is used. And gee, what do you mean by failure rate? The rate depends on how it is defined. For example, one might define failure rate differently for a car battery than the battery in my MacBook. And the rate depends on the how long it is measured. The failure rate of tires during the first 30,000 mi might be say 10%. But, during the first 100,000 mi, it is about 100%. Failure rate requires a definition, and that definition would be different for different products. THere is no way a single number, e.g., 0.02, can describe the failure rate for all manufactured products. The failure rate for cars is going to be different than the failure rate of notebook paper, which is another manufactured product. And, as I showed before, cars have an average failure rate of 118%. Jeff http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10092377-94.html Get a clue. Jeff > "Nate Nagel" <njna...@roosters.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. > >http://members.cox.net/njnagel > 118 per hundred is less than 2%, dummy LOL 118 / 100 is 118%. Less than 2% would be less than 2 per hundred. Dummy. Get a clue so that you stop looking like an idiot. And stop calling people dummy and laughing you look like a jerk (and I give you the benefit of the doubt when I say you only look like one). Or at least get a calculator (hint: there is one that is part of your windows operating system). Jeff > On Jan 15, 5:50 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > >> look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference > > >> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. On Jan 16, 7:24 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > 118 per hundred is less than 2%, dummy LOL 118 / 100 is 118%. Less than 2% would be less than 2 per hundred. Dummy. Get a clue so that you stop looking like an idiot. And stop calling people dummy and laughing you look like a jerk (and I give you the benefit of the doubt when I say you only look like one). Or at least get a calculator (hint: there is one that is part of your windows operating system). Jeff ============= Jeff, he's drunk from noon onward most days. > > 118 per hundred is less than 2%, dummy LOL > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jeff My c.nt = Mike Hunt = a joke robot made to upset people who tell the truth about the death watch of GM >>> 118 per hundred is less than 2%, dummy LOL >> 118 / 100 is 118%. Less than 2% would be less than 2 per hundred. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > My c.nt = Mike Hunt = a joke robot made to upset people who tell the > truth about the death watch of GM Sadly, I think he's a real person - he pops up in other newsgroups occasionally, with the same just barely coherent posts and extravagant claims of wealth and previous employment in several completely different areas of the auto industry. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel DUH! 118 PER HUNDRED is 1.18 PER VEHICLE and LESS than 2%, DUMMY. LOL On Jan 16, 7:24 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > 118 per hundred is less than 2%, dummy LOL 118 / 100 is 118%. Less than 2% would be less than 2 per hundred. Dummy. Get a clue so that you stop looking like an idiot. And stop calling people dummy and laughing you look like a jerk (and I give you the benefit of the doubt when I say you only look like one). Or at least get a calculator (hint: there is one that is part of your windows operating system). Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > >> look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference > > >> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. > DUH! 118 PER HUNDRED is 1.18 PER VEHICLE and LESS than 2%, DUMMY. LOL My lack of any further response to you on this thread is because you're not worth my time. Jeff > On Jan 16, 7:24 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > > >> look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference > > > >> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. Then why have you? ;) On Jan 17, 3:02 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > DUH! 118 PER HUNDRED is 1.18 PER VEHICLE and LESS than 2%, DUMMY. LOL My lack of any further response to you on this thread is because you're not worth my time. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > > >> difference > > > >> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:24:02 -0500, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote Re Re: Will America be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail??: >118 per hundred is less than 2%, dummy LOL 1/100 = 1% 10/100 = 10% 100/100 = 100% 118/100 = 118% or 1.18 defects per vehicle > Actually if you look at CR reports you will discover ALL cars have a > defect ratio of around 2%, the same defect ratio for ALL other > manufactured products. That is why they ALL offer a warranty, even rolls > Royce. The odds are, no matter which one you buy you are far more > likely to get one of the 98% that are not defective, than one of the 2% > that are. LOL Much depends on how 2% is measured. Metrics when quoting defects should be time frame and what is covered in the number. For example if you said major drive trains in the 3 months, I would agree. If you said any mfg defect in the first year, it's BS. I even had a dealer not put the repair on the work order once. It was the passenger window, it came loose. They didn't put it on the final work order. But it was fixed. >>>>Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>> look at teh JD power ratings there isn't a dimes worth of difference >>> between any of the cars in the top half to 2/3rds of the list. > As people have >> noted in the past, when there are "imports" that are sold under both [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bullshit. No, that's absolutely correct. I've been following auto quality ratings now for 24 years and I can cite some specific examples of this. The 1989 Ford Probe and Mazda 626 twins. The Mazda version got higher ratings in Consumer Reports even though they were built on the same assembly line by Mazda. The same is true of the GM/Toyota twin vehicles built at the NUMMI plant. Derek >>>Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote : >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bullshit. Check out the old reviews in CR about the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix. Matrix got a good reveiw but the Vibe was a slacker. Same car on the same assembly line. CR has no credibility. >> Bullshit. > > Check out the old reviews in CR about the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix. > Matrix got a good reveiw but the Vibe was a slacker. Same car on the same > assembly line. CR has no credibility. CR explicitly lists exact clones and near clones as such. Only if owner reports suggest significant differences in the actual quality of models built on the same platform under different brands do they evaluate both. You have no credibility. You hav no credibility. >>> Bullshit. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You have no credibility. > You hav no credibility. For the 80s vintage examples I listed, CR gave them separate listings and separate quality ratings. In the April 2008 auto issue, CR gives the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan separate ratings even though they are built on the same assembly line, by the same workers, using nearly identical parts. The Mercury version is rated higher, even in Reliability. Satisfaction differences might be understandable, as the L-M dealers tend to treat the customers better than the Ford ones do, but reliability? It simply cannot be. The Vibe and Matrix are listed separately, as the other poster asserted. The Ford Ranger and Mazda B share a single entry, which I assume was done because the sample for the Mazda B was too small. There are a couple of other "clone" entries like that, but mostly the clone vehicles are listed separately. Derek Seems to me that those that paid a higher price vis a v, Matrix over Vibe and Milan over the Fusion, for what is basically the same vehicle THINK their choice MUST be better ;) >>>> Bullshit. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> assembly line. CR has no credibility. >snipt> > In the April 2008 auto issue, CR gives the Ford > Fusion and Mercury Milan separate ratings even though they are built on > the > same assembly line, by the same workers, using nearly identical parts. > The > Mercury version is rated higher, even in Reliability. > Derek >>>>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > today. Painful it is. Delaying the date of correction compounds future > pain. Get real, that was 90 or 100 years ago, with nowhere near the massive economy we have now. Thank god certain people are just flipping burgers and not really making decisions on how to run our economy. >>>>>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>>>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > economy we have now. Thank god certain people are just flipping burgers > and not really making decisions on how to run our economy. Size of an economy doesn't matter. There were all sorts of measures taken in the Great Depression to limit imports, attempts to keep prices and wages up. All the policies accomplished was a prolonged depression, high unemployment lasting more than a decade and finally ending in W.W.II. Economic laws can not be circumvented. The same policies of the 30's used today will produce the similar results. We pray it won't lead to war this time around. >>>>>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>>>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >economy we have now. Thank god certain people are just flipping burgers and >not really making decisions on how to run our economy. And the Jackass that had his head handed to him on a plattwer a few weeks ago in the last Canadian election thinks he has the "god-given-right to govern", being a french canadian liberal after-all, so he's putting together a coalition of loosers and lawyers to banrupt Canada instead of letting a bono-fide economist give it a try. If the coalition lasts less than 3 years I HOPE the canadian electorate is smart enough to wipe their hands of the liberal party for at least a few decades. Having the "provincial" block party holding the balance of power is downright foolhardy - and the laws should be changed that you need representatation in at least 3 provinces and territories to hold official party status. >>>>>>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>>>>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > representatation in at least 3 provinces and territories to hold > official party status. How is recent political events in Canada relevant to the discussion and why is it directed to me? > You don't understand that it's not just the "big three" having > problems. The 'imports' are getting help from their parent companies [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stupid and short sighted but there seems to be plenty of cheerleaders > for that simply because they hate unions and other stilly reasons. It's not a case of "putting more workers out of work" or hating unions or anything like that. It's a case of companies' sales falling dramatically, so they cut back on production and lay off workers. All sorts of companies in all sorts of industries are seeing sales fall dramatically. All of them are cutting back production and laying off workers. No one is picking on automakers. No one is picking on autoworkers. No one is picking on autoworker unions. Many autoworkers seem to think the industry revolves around them. Automakers exist to provide them a job and support the UAW. If automakers cant sell cars and can't make money, that's too bad. They still must provide autoworkers a job and continue supporting the UAW. If automakers go bankrupt paying autoworkers' high wages and benefits and supporting the UAW, that's too bad. They still must provide autoworkers a job and continue supporting the UAW. Automakers have 5 crucial issues to address to get bailout http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-01-automakers-bailout_N.htm Good article. >>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > things your way will kill the whole works. Or is that too difficult to > understand? There is plenty of benefit in supporting with taxpayer money, germany and the japanese as well as other companies do it. The problem with many americans today is they rather sell out and support foreign industry as opposed to supporting homebased industry. They have no foresight to see that it could come back and bite them in the a.s. >>>>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>>>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > that > it could come back and bite them in the a.s. The is not benefit. If you take your logic to it's ultimate end you can't trade a damn thing with other countries. You close the border off completely. What you want is a sort of trade arrangement that allows only certain industries to trade. That amounts to placing yourself in the position of a dictator since there are no to people in the world that would completely agree on what is the proper arrangement. The other part that you ignore is that for every import it must be offset by and export. One cannot only do one side of a trade. No different than an individual. You can not only spend. Nor can you only earn without spending. you must live. at some point in time income (exports) must balance expenses (imports). This is a two way deal. The Japanese buy lots of resources with the money they earn from exporting cars. What you intend to do about those sectors if you try to shut down the imported vehicles? > Because the "new" one will not be a domestic company. It will likely > be a Chinese company. We already see the US headed for the dustbin of > history due to the stupidity of various trade agreements that do NOT > protect our OWN industries. You seemingly want to hurry that process > along. Who holds a lot of the trillions of borrowed money? Let's see would a default on the loans make ????? The question in mind is: Will the US auto industry be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail? > The question in mind is: > Will the US auto industry be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail? Yes The US auto industry has been doing this for a few decades now and are at the very end now. Probably a new and better US auto industry will be born after this one dies. >> The question in mind is: >> Will the US auto industry be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The US auto industry has been doing this for a few decades now and are > at the very end now. Doing this for decades? GM lead the world in vehicle production. They did turn around a lot of their quality issues (though admitedly, not all), they did offer competitively equipped cars, they did lead the world in the number of over 30mpg cars offered. GM has been producing comoftable, powerful, capable cars that get over 30mpg for over a decade now. Most of what Japan offers today is smaller, chincier, and does not get any better mileage than what a Park Ave Ultra offered in 1992. And the ride in those little cars does not compare to the ride in that old Park Ave. Not to mention the greater ability of that Park Ave to protect you in an accident. I do believe the management at GM has to go. The corporate philosophy with regards to the manner in which they respond to and respect their customer base is more what has cost GM over the past 10 years than anything else IMHO. The unions are the second biggest contributor to the problems at GM. Protecting workers is fine, but the UAW goes way beyond that and is as corrupt as the worst of the worst out there. Union workers are nothing short of stupid for blindly trusting their unions, and with equal blindness, satisfying themselves with negotiations that fattent them today, at the cost of what it will bring tomorrow. The economy, the cost of a barrel of oil - these are all ticks. They come along every couple of decades, and they go away. They are self-stabilizing events. These two factors contribute far less to the current problems in Detroit than anything else. If GM, Ford and Chrysler had done a better job of paying attention to customer care, resolved long standing design problems, (instead of ignoring them because customers will just come back anyway), trimmed the business in keeping with business practices in the 90's and 00's, then they would have been in a better position to weather through the current times. Unfortunately, across the board, there was too much Good-Old-Boys stuff prevailing. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > >> The question in mind is: > >> Will the US auto industry be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > -Mike- > mmarlowREM...@alltel.net GM reahed its top around 1960 or so and has been going downhill since then. It stopped being a world leader and has slowly been heading for the abyss. They have had massive opportunity to turn things around. Now they are standing at the edge of the waterfall and it is unfortunate but ineviatable that they will fall. It will mark a new beginning for US and a lot of new technologies will emerge after the fall.. On Nov 27, 4:05 pm, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:17:04 -0800 (PST), Gosi cast forth these pearls of > wisdom...: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > -Mike- > mmarlowREM...@alltel.net GM reahed its top around 1960 or so and has been going downhill since then. It stopped being a world leader and has slowly been heading for the abyss. They have had massive opportunity to turn things around. Now they are standing at the edge of the waterfall and it is unfortunate but ineviatable that they will fall. It will mark a new beginning for US and a lot of new technologies will emerge after the fall.. And where will this technology come from, your garage? Where do you get your goofy ideas? GM up untill 2007, that end of the 19,000,000 market in the US, sold more vehicle than at ANYBODY and at ANYTIME it its history LOL On Nov 27, 4:05 pm, Mike Marlow <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:17:04 -0800 (PST), Gosi cast forth these pearls of > wisdom...: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > mention the greater ability of that Park Ave to protect you in an > accident. GM reahed its top around 1960 or so and has been going downhill since then. It stopped being a world leader and has slowly been heading for the abyss. > Where do you get your goofy ideas? GM up untill 2007, that end of the > 19,000,000 market in the US, sold more vehicle than at ANYBODY and at > ANYTIME it its history LOL GM has lost billions of dollars since 2004 Now they want to become a communistic organistaion and get everybodies money to make more garbage. Not so funny for the US taxpayer - hilarious to the rest of the world But what you said was "GM reahed (sic) its top around 1960 or so and has been going downhill since." Like I said that may be your own goofy opinion but it is not factual. GM has outsold every manufacturer in every year since 1960. In 2006 it sold hundreds of thousands MORE vehicles than in 1960, and more than twice as many as it sold in the fifties. Do some research before you comment, and perhaps you will not seems so goofy so often, WBMA On Nov 28, 6:56 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > Where do you get your goofy ideas? GM up untill 2007, that end of the > 19,000,000 market in the US, sold more vehicle than at ANYBODY and at > ANYTIME it its history LOL GM has lost billions of dollars since 2004 Now they want to become a communistic organistaion and get everybodies money to make more garbage. Not so funny for the US taxpayer - hilarious to the rest of the world Gosi <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote : >> The question in mind is: >> Will the US auto industry be stupid enough to let US auto industry [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Probably a new and better US auto industry will be born after this > one dies. Dumping the unions would be a good first step. Why they might actually turn a profit. > Gosi <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Why they might actually turn a profit. You don't just dump a union. These union contracts have been around the necks og GM and the others for 75 years or more. You don't just tell them to get out and expect them to go away. Do you really think the Japanese would have even made it this far if they were stuck under union contracts? They can actually make a profit on there cars because they are not hindered by unions. "QuickDraw McGraw" <QDME@yahoo.cum> wrote : >> Dumping the unions would be a good first step. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the necks og GM and the others for 75 years or more. You don't just > tell them to get out and expect them to go away. Yeah, they're mobs of thugs. Who told you that, your boss? ;) > "QuickDraw McGraw" <QDME@yahoo.cum> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yeah, they're mobs of thugs. "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote : > Who told you that, your boss? ;) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Yeah, they're mobs of thugs. Personal first hand experience, like when I worked at the Post Office in the 70's and the union steward came over and told me I should "slow down - you're making the others look bad", otherwise "things might happen to me". Pathetic. I've never worked a union job since. > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > - you're making the others look bad", otherwise "things might happen to > me". Uh huh. And like you didn't have a lot of other things you could be doing - like sorthing through mail in the dead-letter office? > Pathetic. I've never worked a union job since. I've heard that "go slow" in a union shop as well. However they wern't concerned with making others look bad. They were concerned because the work orders coming in had slowed down and they didn't want the workers completing everything then sitting around doing absolutely nothing for a couple weeks. Generally "go slow" periods were used by the employees to do things like repair and upgrade their work areas, reorganize common areas that held fastners, etc. Of course, this work was interspersed with actual work. For example, the drill press guy might spend 20 minutes or so drilling holes in parts, then 40 minutes sorting and sharpening his drill bits. The full hour of time would be charged to the work on the parts. I'm sure the top management of that plant was well aware of the tricks. It probably saved them the trouble of cooking the books to disguise the full cost of running a shop, if the employees had actually charged maintainence work to the maintainence billing item. The fact of the matter is that work scheduling at the factory floor level is no different than work scheduling in a white collar office like a lawyers office. If you go to a lawyer and he spends 10 minutes researching something for you, your gonna get charged for an hour. What is the lawyer doing the other 50 minutes? Seems to me he's doing the same thing that the drill press operator is doing when he's sharpening his drill bits instead of drilling holes in parts. If you worked in a Post Office and you had an hour allotted to your job of sorting a basket of mail, and you were able to complete the job in 15 minutes, if you were not self-motivated enough to find some other work to do so that you would continue to look like you were busy, then frankly your a pretty shitty employee. Every workplace has lots of stuff that needs doing, that isn't necessairly in your job description. No wonder the shop steward came over and talked to you. Your probably one of those types that wouldn't do anything that wasn't in your job description, and you would simply do what you were told to do then sit on your a.s when you were done, whining that there wasn't enough work for you to do. Ted Google Urban Legends, WBMA. No union can stop management from discharging an employee who does not do his job or not do it properly, period > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Pathetic. I've never worked a union job since. > Google Urban Legends, WBMA. No union can stop management from discharging > an employee who does not do his job or not do it properly, period You're mistaken. Unions tend to work in reverse. I've seen. >> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> Pathetic. I've never worked a union job since. You don't know what you are taking about. I never had a problem firing any of my union employees who were not doing their job properly, period. The union that represented my employees was no fly by night union.. My techs were represented by the Machinist Union. >> Google Urban Legends, WBMA. No union can stop management from >> discharging an employee who does not do his job or not do it properly, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>> >>> Pathetic. I've never worked a union job since. > The question in mind is: > Will the US auto industry be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail? Well, Sarah, (if that is really your name), the jury is still out as to whether it is stupid to fund this industry, or whether it is stupid to let it fend for itself. There is no clear concensus at the moment. Nobody wants them to fail, but all these bailouts are ruining what little economy we have left, and some sages are saying that these payments are just the tip of the iceberg....that it will hold the doors open to a failed business model for a few weeks or months, but will be insufficient to get these former giant corportions off life support. The government doesnt listen to me (or indeed "us") . Wait and watch "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote : >> The question in mind is: >> Will the US auto industry be stupid enough to let US auto industry >> fail? > > Well, Sarah, (if that is really your name), Is nospam really your name? Get real, this is usenet. > the jury is still out as > to whether it > is stupid to fund this industry, or whether it is stupid to let it > fend for itself. > There is no clear concensus at the moment. It's like pouring tax slave money down a rathole. > Nobody wants them to fail, Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self- generated action - which means the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of the rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. ( Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)" - Ayn Rand That goes for companies too. "Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to 'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat human beings as chattel." -- Ayn Rand Taking money at gunpoint from people and using it to prop up failed industries is just that. > "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Taking money at gunpoint from people and using it to prop up failed > industries is just that. Good post. How America has slipped in a hundred years. > "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Taking money at gunpoint from people and using it to prop up failed > industries is just that. OK tell that to your boy Bush and Paulson when we got stuck up to bail out wallstreet. > Taking money at gunpoint from people and using it to prop up failed > industries is just that. They tried the "hand's-off" approach after the 1929 stock market crash and they got the Great Depression. Any economist today will tell you that doing nothing is going to guarentee not just a severe recession but a depression too. That is why Congress signed off on the 700 billion financial bailout of all the banks. There is nothing wrong with bailing out an industry that in normal economic times would be profitable. The trick is figuring out if the industry your bailing out WOULD be profitable if the economy hadn't tanked. Unfortunately what has clouded the auto bailout debate are the legions of people who years ago bought a car and something went wrong with it and they now see this as their chance to "get even" with the automakers. If this was Japan and the subject of bailing out Toyota was public discussion there would be equal venom from some quarters to keep them alive. It is simply that everyone who has ever owned a car has felt it wasn't as good a deal as it could have been for them. Cars are products people love to hate. Of course, being a girl I don't expect you to understand anything about this anyway. Why don't you go back to Target and buy some dresses or something? Ted > There is nothing wrong with bailing out an industry that in normal economic > times would be profitable. The trick is figuring out if the industry your > bailing out WOULD be profitable if the economy hadn't tanked. Unfortunately > what has clouded the auto bailout debate are the legions of people who years > ago bought a car and something went wrong with it and they now see this > as their chance to "get even" with the automakers. Close but no cigar Ted. I don't think there is such a legion of folks who are reacting to a single, or even a couple of minor things, sometime in their past. I think it's more like a very large number of people who watched for years as GM established a posture of ignoring known problems - large scale problems, and turned a cold shoulder to the mass of buyers. I don't believe it is at all a matter of getting even. Many of us are, and have been for a couple of years now, waiting to see if GM would respond any differently with some of their new cars (and the attendent problems associated with a new model introduction), than they have with issues in the past. For many of us it is much more a matter of wanting to see an new relationship between GM and its customers, starting from the top. Most of us are not seeing that. > If this was Japan and the subject of bailing out Toyota was public > discussion > there would be equal venom from some quarters to keep them alive. It is > simply that everyone who has ever owned a car has felt it wasn't as good a > deal as it could have been for them. Cars are products people love to hate. I don't believe you can reduce this issue to such simplistic terms Ted. > Of course, being a girl I don't expect you to understand anything about > this anyway. Why don't you go back to Target and buy some dresses > or something? Holy sh.t mister - you'd better be ducking for cover... Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > > There is nothing wrong with bailing out an industry that in normal economic > > times would be profitable. The trick is figuring out if the industry your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > relationship between GM and its customers, starting from the top. Most of > us are not seeing that. "Most of you" were still buying their products, up until last year. If this really was an issue then after 911 the GM "0 percent interest" would have been a marketing flop. > > If this was Japan and the subject of bailing out Toyota was public > > discussion [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Holy sh.t mister - you'd better be ducking for cover... Why? We know perfectly well that Sarah is a man. He/She basically admitted it already. It's just another pseudonym for a longtime poster. Ted "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote : >> Taking money at gunpoint from people and using it to prop up failed >> industries is just that. > > They tried the "hand's-off" approach after the 1929 stock market > crash and they got the Great Depression. WRONG. It was because the government wouldn't let the free market work, that the recession turned into the Great Depression. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-detrick/2008/10/27/ucla-economists- government-intervention-prolonged-great-depression > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-detrick/2008/10/27/ucla-economists- > government-intervention-prolonged-great-depression http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf We should have a monument in Washington DC to the guy that brought an end to that worldwide Depression, Adolph Hitler > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-detrick/2008/10/27/ucla-economists- > government-intervention-prolonged-great-depression > We should have a monument in Washington DC to the guy that brought an end to > that worldwide Depression, Adolph Hitler Adolph Toiletpaper sent a message to Adolph Hitler and asked he could change his name. Adolph Hitler answered and said sure you can. I can imagine that it could not be nice to have a last name Toiletpaper. The guy sent another message and said no I want to change my name to Mike Toiletpaper. You are confused again. Toilet paper is what they use to wipe up Gosi LOL > "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is nospam really your name? Get real, this is usenet. A lot of times men post here using their wive's or girlfriend's account. It is not rare but is a little unusual for women to be interested in many of these groups. Doesnt really matter at the end of the day. > "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Taking money at gunpoint from people and using it to prop up failed > industries is just that. Yeh let all 3 fail and lets watch the trickle down effect. It may even trickle on you. > The question in mind is: > Will the US auto industry be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail? Ask that same question to Paulson about saving wallstreet, you know the ones who simply push paper around and opposed to actually manufacturing a product that requires overhead. >> Because the "new" one will not be a domestic company. It will likely >> be a Chinese company. We already see the US headed for the dustbin of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Who holds a lot of the trillions of borrowed money? Let's see would a >default on the loans make ????? Huh? The borrowed money is held by the US, they borrowed it from china. Now we owe the money to china. When the notes are due the US will pay them and will print money to do so if that's what it takes. As they come due and we pay china with dollars then they use those dollars to either buy more notes and earn more interest or to buy the remains of GM FORD CHRYSLER. Either way, China currently "owns" a huge chunk of the US. Which would you rather then own, some pieces of paper (treasury notes) or our entire manufacturing base??? >>> Because the "new" one will not be a domestic company. It will likely >>> be a Chinese company. We already see the US headed for the dustbin of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > huge chunk of the US. Which would you rather then own, some pieces of > paper (treasury notes) or our entire manufacturing base??? Would we rather they own our whole economic system or three companies? Gee, that's a tough one. yes our gov is that stupid. they didnt care about job loss when they did the nafta cafta deals . we have been sold out by our gov . they dont care that epa runs off companies to china/mexico where they pollute 10 times worse than they did here.it just goes on and on. its about money and an idea of a one world gov and economy . ---------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm > Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign > companies?? Are they really that stupid. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe0TOEc6EJs Fortunately, GM & Chrysler can't make me buy their crap. With all the focus on their (bad) debt, poor managment, militant unions and supplier payment issues this has to show in the lack of quality of the over priced product. Pricess that we haven't heard of any real changes for that money. Just a corrupt tax payer ripoff for the powerful. WW III isn't going to need trucks and jeeps like previous wars. It needs Apache, F22's and the like. One properly equiped F22 or A10 can do far more damage to an enemy than a fleet of tanks and trucks and for a fraction of the cost in fuel and lives. Fighting on the ground will take place, but not like WW I and WW II. You only need to go into villages and towns with trucks to control a region. In a big war, you can do just as well starving them by blowing up storage bunkers and supply lines. Maybe even small nuetron bombs. >> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In a big war, you can do just as well starving them by blowing up storage > bunkers and supply lines. Maybe even small nuetron bombs. A war planner you clearly are not. It might pay to observe the debacle over in Iraq. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message > A war planner you clearly are not. It might pay to observe the debacle > over in Iraq. > -Mike- That isnt a war...it is a debacle, just as you have named it. > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That isnt a war...it is a debacle, just as you have named it. It is a war This kind of war is very similar to what is going on in gasa, afganistan, earlier in vietnam, many places in africa Big military might can not win these kinds of wars. Earlier when people like alexander etc came to a town that was not complying they killed all the citicens. The Israelis with US backing is trying similar tactics but the world oppinion does not allow it. So they kill their enemies gradually. The warriors are mostly in saudy, syria and Iran but send in suicide bombers. Very diffficult to fight such wars but they are still wars. If the US wants to win they have to attach a hell of a lot of countries and wipe out everybody. Perhaps in your world but in the real world we must assume you missed the fact the radical Islamic nuts came to Iraq for nearly seven years, were could kill them by the dozens? Even Obama said in a CBS interview after the election that we have (Read; President Bush's war on Islamic international terrorism) have drastically reduced the ability of Al Qaeda to do us harm since 9/11. LOL On 19 Jan, 17:26, "HLS" <nos...@nospam.nix> wrote: > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That isnt a war...it is a debacle, just as you have named it. It is a war This kind of war is very similar to what is going on in gasa, afganistan, earlier in vietnam, many places in africa Big military might can not win these kinds of wars. Earlier when people like alexander etc came to a town that was not complying they killed all the citicens. The Israelis with US backing is trying similar tactics but the world oppinion does not allow it. So they kill their enemies gradually. The warriors are mostly in saudy, syria and Iran but send in suicide bombers. Very diffficult to fight such wars but they are still wars. If the US wants to win they have to attach a hell of a lot of countries and wipe out everybody. I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you posted that LOL > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That isnt a war...it is a debacle, just as you have named it. >> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > region. In a big war, you can do just as well starving them by blowing up > storage bunkers and supply lines. Maybe even small nuetron bombs. So Apaches will be needed, just like GM was also building Airplanes in mass production. Who will build your Apaches in mass...toyota? >>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign >>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > So Apaches will be needed, just like GM was also building Airplanes in > mass production. Who will build your Apaches in mass...toyota? You conveniently missed my point. GM is not needed for national security as implied. I can think of at least 5 dozen companies more important than GM. In fact, bailouts may actually weaken nation security as the socialization of the auto industry will weaken the industry in quality and efficiencies. Russian socialist made Lada anyone? It certainly weakens the greenback as the money was not borrowed, it was printed (created). And Ford or Toyota or Nissan or BMW could build the GM equivelent vehicles if needed. Boeing and others in aerospace will do the planes. GM is NOT the iconic name it used to be. The years of apathy in addressing the issues and increased competition have made their former WW II and cold war era status redundant. A 40 year steady decay from GM's zenith has occured. Their debt has made them crippled to a point of no return for anyone. And the industry no longer needs the capactity. In fact, if GM/Chrysler went right under, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, Honda and others will see the orders increase to compensate for the absence of GM. Maybe even buy some of GMs assets and re-employ those willing to work. It might be decades or even lifetimes before industry peek auto sales are seen again when adjusted to population base. And even then, if the vehicle numbers did come back, the margins will be smaller as will the profits. Any increase here-in on auto sales will likely have to be driven by innovation and economics. Just like TVs, radios, CPUs, computers.... offshore they go because we can't make them at a price people can pay for and at a profit. With all this bailout BS, it will make it to the tax payer. The net effect is the tax payer will have on average lower wages, higher taxes and less money for autos. Hey, if the government wants 3rd work junta interest rates and funny money for currency, we have to start living like them. Especially since North America has maxed out it's credit. Any economic recovery isn't going to be sustained if it is driven by BS. > >>> Do they really want to turn this much power and might to foreign > >>> companies?? Are they really that stupid. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > America has maxed out it's credit. Any economic recovery isn't going to be > sustained if it is driven by BS. Cars are needlessly complicated and not using standard components enough. It would be possible to make a similar revolution with cars as with mobiles and PCs. Cars are essentially boxes with wheels. By making them with standard components we could have the same components made in bulk and not needing to have new kind of expensive parts and specialized tools. They could really be sold in low cost stores and it is really silly to spend enourmous amounts of money on cars. Get real! In WWII Bantam developed the Jeep for the military. There was no way a company like Bantam had the production capacity to BUILD the number if Jeeps needed. The War Office gave the job to Willys. They too did not have the production capacity to make enough of them, fast enough. The government paid Ford millions to convert to Jeep production and it took months to do. Ford was not a publicly held company back then, Ford owned his manufacturing plants and sold Jeeps to the Government at cost. In any future war we will not have time to convert one of the Jap plants to make what we need and the government would first have to nationalize them in any event. As to vehicle pricing if the domestics went under. Prices will skyrocket, especially the smaller less profitable cars. What keeps their price down today is the sales of the bigger more profitable cars have been subsidizing the MSRP of the small cars, they must make and sell to meet CAFE. It costs relatively little more to make bigger cars, luxury cars and trucks, particularly RWD vehicles. As the higher CAFE, already in place, comes into effect look for the prices of small and midget cars to go way up and in the absence of the domestics and the over production that is in place today, they will likely double at least. As it is it costs one 20% to 30% more to drive home an import than a domestic vehicle of the same size and with the same equipment. What do you think will happen if there were no domestic with which to compete? > In fact, if GM/Chrysler went right under, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, Honda > and others will see the orders increase to compensate for the absence of > GM. Maybe even buy some of GMs assets and re-employ those willing to work. > Get real! In WWII Bantam developed the Jeep for the military. There was > no way a company like Bantam had the production capacity to BUILD the > number if Jeeps needed. The War Office gave the job to Willys. They too > did not have the production capacity to make enough of them, fast enough. Not arguing that at all. I was disputing the need for GM as a requirement for national defense. For a Jeep, many companies have made them, even Misubishi (Japan) produced copies of "Just Enough Essential Parts" vehicles. > The government paid Ford millions to convert to Jeep production and it > took months to do. Ford was not a publicly held company back then, Ford > owned his manufacturing plants and sold Jeeps to the Government at cost. > In any future war we will not have time to convert one of the Jap plants > to make what we need and the government would first have to nationalize > them in any event. So? GM doesn't even make Jeeps any more, they make Hummers. Bet Toyota or Ford could start making them easily enough. Ford even has working equivenets in the F150/250/350 line. > As to vehicle pricing if the domestics went under. Prices will > skyrocket, especially the smaller less profitable cars. What keeps their > price down today is the sales of the bigger more profitable cars have been > subsidizing the MSRP of the small cars, they must make and sell to meet > CAFE. It costs relatively little more to make bigger cars, luxury cars > and trucks, particularly RWD vehicles. The market left alone always does better than government in deciding efficient yet sustainable pricing in any business. > As the higher CAFE, already in place, comes into effect look for the > prices of small and midget cars to go way up and in the absence of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > equipment. What do you think will happen if there were no domestic with > which to compete? What does CAFE got to do with it? (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). How many cars do you think we import? The Hondas from Alliston Ontario or the Toyotas from Texas or the Nissans from Kentucky or was it Tennessee? I hate to prick your bubble but Honda, Toyota and Nissan are as much of a domestic manufacturer as is the D3. Get over it, only the location of the head office changes and even have US offices. And in fact many of the "jap" companies use more domestic parts than do the D3!!!! D3, defunct three. Although I like my F150...nice ride. >> In fact, if GM/Chrysler went right under, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, >> Honda and others will see the orders increase to compensate for the >> absence of GM. Maybe even buy some of GMs assets and re-employ those >> willing to work. >> As the higher CAFE, already in place, comes into effect look for the >> prices of small and midget cars to go way up and in the absence of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What does CAFE got to do with it? (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). If you don't even understand the basic connection with CAFE on pricing, then I am waiting my time trying to enlighten you any further, bye > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message >> As the higher CAFE, already in place, comes into effect look for the >> prices of small and midget cars to go way up and in the absence of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What does CAFE got to do with it? (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). > If you don't even understand the basic connection with CAFE on pricing, > then I am waiting my time trying to enlighten you any further, bye I don't have to. The affects also affect Toyota, Nissan, Ford, Honda and BMW... It didn't put them on the brink of bailout/bankruptcy. CAFE didn't selectively bankrupt GM/Chrysler. Incompetant management, corrupt directors, militant unions did GM/Chrysler in. >> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> What does CAFE got to do with it? (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). You are entitled to you own opinion but like I said I would only be wasting my time, if you don't understand the basics. I get paid well when I teach a college class, I'm not about to teach in a NG for free. >> If you don't even understand the basic connection with CAFE on pricing, >> then I am waiting my time trying to enlighten you any further, bye [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>> >>> What does CAFE got to do with it? (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). > You are entitled to you own opinion but like I said I would only be > wasting my time, if you don't understand the basics. I get paid well > when I teach a college class, I'm not about to teach in a NG for free. LOL. Guess it isn't worth paying for. >>> If you don't even understand the basic connection with CAFE on pricing, >>> then I am waiting my time trying to enlighten you any further, bye [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>>> >>>> What does CAFE got to do with it? (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). Why would anyone pay for a free course? LOL >> You are entitled to you own opinion but like I said I would only be >> wasting my time, if you don't understand the basics. I get paid well [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>>> >>>>> What does CAFE got to do with it? (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). > Why would anyone pay for a free course? LOL No one would. And there is a reason it is "free". Either it is a sales pitch or no good, take your pick. >>> You are entitled to you own opinion but like I said I would only be >>> wasting my time, if you don't understand the basics. I get paid well [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> What does CAFE got to do with it? (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). I would not know, I never teach a free class. ;) >> Why would anyone pay for a free course? LOL > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What does CAFE got to do with it? (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). That is what they would like us to believe but if you LISTEN to Toyotas TV ads you will notice that they no longer say the Camry is made in the US. What they do say is "assembled in the US of world sourced parts." According to the US Commerce Dept site, 50% more of the vehicles sold in the US by Toyota etal, are NOT made in the US. Conversely, well of over 50% of their profits are earned from sales in the US that is why they showed a loss during the last quarter of '08 and expect further loss in '09 according to published reports. On the other hand 80% or more of all the vehicles sold in the US by the domestics are made here "Canuck57" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:nitcl.13891 > How many cars do you think we import? The Hondas from Alliston Ontario or > the Toyotas from Texas or the Nissans from Kentucky or was it Tennessee? > That is what they would like us to believe but if you LISTEN to Toyotas TV > ads you will notice that they no longer say the Camry is made in the US. > What they do say is "assembled in the US of world sourced parts." How is that different than a F150, RAM 1500 or a Sierra? Or any other vehicle for that mater. In fact, I would be willing to bet every North American assembled vehicle has some foreign parts content. Take the Volt, AU made. Yep, imported engine. Access to cheaper orient steel they don't think they can get Flint costs down enough. LOL. > According to the US Commerce Dept site, 50% more of the vehicles sold in > the US by Toyota etal, are NOT made in the US. Conversely, well of over [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> or the Toyotas from Texas or the Nissans from Kentucky or was it >> Tennessee? Because domestics use mostly domestic parts, not mostly imported parts and MATERIALS as do the Japs. Search the US Commerce Dept site for the facts, WBMS >> That is what they would like us to believe but if you LISTEN to Toyotas >> TV ads you will notice that they no longer say the Camry is made in the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>> or the Toyotas from Texas or the Nissans from Kentucky or was it >>> Tennessee? > Because domestics use mostly domestic parts, not mostly imported parts and > MATERIALS as do the Japs. > > Search the US Commerce Dept site for the facts, WBMS LOL. Same retarted mentality as a union CAW/UAW like to spew. First off take the Toyota Tundra, contains more NAFTA parts assembled in Texas USA than does GM Sierra, F150, RAM1500 --- As for American/Canadian domestic built, that now includes Toyota, Honda, BMW and Nissan and isn't limited to the dogs of Detroit. (Mind you, I like Ford trucks) North American domestic auto manufactures are not just D3... the competition has been eating away their market for over 40 years right on their front lawn! And id-10-t droid management didn't even care to try to do anything about it but whine for government money. Says a lot of where the real problems are. We have to let GM/Chrylser die so the rest of the industry does not get the gangrene does not affect the 5 others. >>> That is what they would like us to believe but if you LISTEN to Toyotas >>> TV ads you will notice that they no longer say the Camry is made in the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>>> or the Toyotas from Texas or the Nissans from Kentucky or was it >>>> Tennessee? Really? you did not search the US Department of Commerce site if that is what you believe. How does you opinion square with the fact GM sells more vehicles than any other manufacturers? The fact is GM sold far more vehicles on average over the past five years than back in the day when they sold nearly 50% of all the vehicles sold in the US. ;) "Canuck57" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%iLcl.165072 $2w3.85669@newsfe19.iad... >> Because domestics use mostly domestic parts, not mostly imported parts >> and MATERIALS as do the Japs. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > competition has been eating away their market for over 40 years right on > their front lawn! > Really? you did not search the US Department of Commerce site if that is > what you believe. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > over the past five years than back in the day when they sold nearly 50% of > all the vehicles sold in the US. ;) Hey, subsidised by the tax payers to the US government, I can sell as many as you would like. I could even go up against Toyota, Honda, Ford and Nissan and put them out of business! So what if you sell more but lose thousands on each one sold. For example, with $17B from US, plus $4B from GMAC, plus $4-5B CDN, I can subsize every car I make this year at 1M per month by $25,000.... Take a $50K USD Diesel truck and mark it for a $30K sale and we keep the numbers. You don't make money that way, but I don't think GM/Chrysler managmeent gives a dead rats a.s about making money. GM needs to do chapter 11. > "Canuck57" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%iLcl.165072 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> competition has been eating away their market for over 40 years right on >> their front lawn! I don't know from what source you form your opinions but loans are not subsidies. GM gave $500,000,000 in PREFERRED stock to the US Government to secure the loans. To the contrary, every country in the world that has an auto industry DOES subsides their industry. Japan is and has been subsiding ALL of their industries since WWII. >> Really? you did not search the US Department of Commerce site if that is >> what you believe. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hey, subsidised by the tax payers to the US government, I can sell as many > as you would like. On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:46:12 -0500, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote Re Re: Will America be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail??: >I don't know from what source you form your opinions but loans are not >subsidies. GM gave $500,000,000 in PREFERRED stock to the US Government to >secure the loans. That preferred stock will not be worth the paper it's printed on when BM goes belly-up. Apparently you know nothing about preferred stock, as seems to be the case with most of the things on which you chose to comment. If you did you would not have made such a dumb comment LOL > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:46:12 -0500, "Mike Hunter" > <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote Re Re: Will America be stupid enough to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That preferred stock will not be worth the paper it's printed on when > BM goes belly-up. > Really? you did not search the US Department of Commerce site if that > is what you believe. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> competition has been eating away their market for over 40 years right >> on their front lawn! Chamber of Commerce eh Mikey? Which part of 'you did not search the US Department of Commerce site if that is what you believe,' did you not understand? >> Really? you did not search the US Department of Commerce site if that >> is what you believe. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> > Chamber of Commerce eh Mikey? > Get real! In WWII Bantam developed the Jeep for the military. There > was no way a company like Bantam had the production capacity to BUILD [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the same equipment. What do you think will happen if there were no > domestic with which to compete? Wake up Genius, this is not 1940 but 2009 and wars are not fought by building a military or equipment after the conflict starts, but by weapons in stock. New military manufacturing companies will replace the Big 3 if they fail. The auto industry is going to change from 25,000 dollar cars to 15,000 dollar cars within the next 20 years and they won't be made by 75,000 dollar a year UAW members. As you say, you can believe what you choose to believe. > > Get real! In WWII Bantam developed the Jeep for the military. There > > was no way a company like Bantam had the production capacity to BUILD [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > won't be made by 75,000 dollar a year UAW members. > As you say, you can believe what you choose to believe. Unfortunately wars are fought using suicide bombers and shooting rockets among civilians and vehicles have not any major part in it. Really? Perhaps not in your world but I guess we assume you are not aware of all the vehicles we have used in our real worldwide war with the radical Islamic terrorist? LOL On 18 Jan, 00:50, tango <ta...@cynet.com> wrote: > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote > innews:iaCdnX_08oug2-_UnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@ptd.net: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > won't be made by 75,000 dollar a year UAW members. > As you say, you can believe what you choose to believe. Unfortunately wars are fought using suicide bombers and shooting rockets among civilians and vehicles have not any major part in it. > Really? Perhaps not in your world but I guess we assume you are not aware > of all the vehicles we have used in our real worldwide war with the radical > Islamic terrorist? And you are losing On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:57:32 -0500, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote Re Re: Will America be stupid enough to let US auto industry fail??: >The government paid Ford millions to convert to Jeep production and it took >months to do. Ford was not a publicly held company back then, Ford owned >his manufacturing plants and sold Jeeps to the Government at cost. In any >future war we will not have time to convert one of the Jap plants to make >what we need and the government would first have to nationalize them in any >event. Americans don't have the *will* to win a war (Iraq-II, Iraq-I, Vietnam, Korea), so it's best to stay out of them. Maybe we can get the Japanese or Chinese to do our fighting for us? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.