 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / February 2006A Few Government Regs Would Solve all the Problems
Want a car with 100% domestic content? All the Government has to do is put this in their bidding specifications. Any company that wants to bid on fleet sales for Government cars and trucks is going to build them 100% in the U.S. from 100% U.S. made parts. These contracts are so big, at least one of the Big Three will go along. If the Feds are smart, they'll make it mandatory nationwide to include all the state and local governmental vehicle orders as well. Once governments start buying 100% made-here cars, you can too. The biggest threat to the U.S. is not terrorism, by a long shot. Its de-industrialization. Whenever you hear the politicians tell you commodity production like flatware and steam iron production is best left to the third world and we should concentrate on the "higher value" goods and services, ask them what the lower half of the bell curve is supposed to do for a living? They need to work in pots and pans factories and the like; stuff now handed off to China. Seconded! > Want a car with 100% domestic content? All the Government has to do is > put [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > for a living? They need to work in pots and pans factories and the like; > stuff now handed off to China. > Want a car with 100% domestic content? All the Government has to do is put > this in their bidding specifications. Any company that wants to bid on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > for a living? They need to work in pots and pans factories and the like; > stuff now handed off to China. You have a point here. I'm not sure it is still the case, but I do know that about 10 yrs back the UK still only gave a business tax reduction on UK built cars. A friend of mine working there bought a Rover with a Honda drive train. >:) Greetings, An interesting idea, but totally devoid of any knowledge of history and government. First and foremost, it would be a wonderful idea to spec a vehicle with 100% domestic content, but at what cost? Unless you can obtain bids from several companies all doing business and producing a product in the same or similar manner, the only one who will answer you're "100% American" request for bid will have siginificantly higher costs than any of the others. Besides, if you really want more American content in a car the government would be the last one you would want to dictate it. Instead, convince the 4 largest rental car companies to insist on more US content and you will see a difference based on the wants of the market and not government regulations. Second, the federal government can't dictate to state or local governments about their bidding and specification policies. Do you really want the feds to have that much say in the day-to-day ordinary business of your local government? I don't think so... And lastly, the reason why we have been less than worried about sending commodity production overseas is that it is exactly that type of light industrialization that has caused a great many of the economic and environmental issues that we are still trying to fix today. The only way that we can compete with China in the steam iron production arena is to pay our workers what the Chinese pay theirs, and the Chinese industrialists have a motto "Nothing reduces your labor costs like slavery". And while we go about cleaning up our environment from a century of industrialization, countries that are now producing things like flatwear and pots and pans are only getting worse and will have that much more to clean up in the next century. You are correct - the greatest threat to America is not terrorism, but neither is it deindustrialization. The greatest threat to us is if we fail to realize that we live in a global ecomony and are no longer an island reliant on nobody outside our borders. Cheers - Jonathan > Want a car with 100% domestic content? All the Government has to do is > put [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > for a living? They need to work in pots and pans factories and the like; > stuff now handed off to China. > Want a car with 100% domestic content? All the Government has to do is put > this in their bidding specifications. Any company that wants to bid on > fleet sales for Government cars and trucks is going to build them 100% in > the U.S. from 100% U.S. made parts. An ok idea but I can't afford a $250,000 US made car. A country or a company gets other people's money by importing raw materials and exporting the value added manufactured product. Such a regulation would not be allowed under international trade laws. The answer to the loss of American manufacturing jobs lies squarely with the US consumer and its greed. Americans should be more like the Japanese and buy only those imported products that are not available from domestic manufacture to protect their own jobs. Alas American consumer are too greedy to do what is needed, they prefer to save a few dollars at the expense of the children and grand children future. mike hunt > Want a car with 100% domestic content? All the Government has to do is > put [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > for a living? They need to work in pots and pans factories and the like; > stuff now handed off to China. Why should I buy overpriced sh.t? American companies should make competitive products, then even if they did cost a little more people would want to buy them. Sad thing is, there's lots of decent American cars/engines/designs that got killed off in favor of crappy (but probably cheaper to build) ones. nate > Such a regulation would not be allowed under international trade laws. The > answer to the loss of American manufacturing jobs lies squarely with the US [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > for a living? They need to work in pots and pans factories and the like; > > stuff now handed off to China. That is what I meant by greedy American consumers with no regard for their own economy. Foreign vehicles generally cost 20% to 30% more to drive home than comparably sized and equipped domestics, in any even, not more. mike hunt > Why should I buy overpriced sh.t? American companies should make > competitive products, then even if they did cost a little more people [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> > like; >> > stuff now handed off to China. > That is what I meant by greedy American consumers with no regard for their > own economy. Foreign vehicles generally cost 20% to 30% more to drive home > than comparably sized and equipped domestics, in any even, not more. > mike hunt You've been singing that song for a long time and never bothered to prove it. Further, consumers understand that "drive home" cost isn't the be-all and end-all. Depreciation counts, as does reliability and fuel economy. Many consumers believe Toyota wins on those counts and that's a big part of the reason they buy Toyotas. > > Why should I buy overpriced sh.t? American companies should make > > competitive products, then even if they did cost a little more people [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >> > like; > >> > stuff now handed off to China. That may be your opinion but many more buyers must believe GM and Ford products are better in that regard, after all they buy a lot more of GM and Ford Vehicles than Toyotas. ;) mike hunt >> That is what I meant by greedy American consumers with no regard for >> their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > consumers believe Toyota wins on those counts and that's a big part of the > reason they buy Toyotas. www.SecureIX.com *** > That may be your opinion but many more buyers must believe GM and Ford > products are better in that regard, after all they buy a lot more of GM and > Ford Vehicles than Toyotas. ;) > mike hunt Fewer every day. ;) And selling cars while losing money on each one can only go on for so long. I see you dodged the "20% to 30%" issue again. Go to Edmunds and click on Chevy's "Head to Head" promotion. It's good for a laugh. Using fantasy depreciation numbers, a Chevy costs "the same" as a Toyota. That's a good one. Like the people who buy Toyotas would be persuaded to buy a Chevy for the same price. > >> That is what I meant by greedy American consumers with no regard for > >> their [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > www.SecureIX.com *** You have not been out in the real world and tried to purchase a new vehicle obviously. Do you want a good example? Go get a total drive home price from a dealer on a Matrix and a Vibe with the SAME equipment. Same car different brand name on the grill, but the drive home price on the Vibe averages $1,500 to $2,500 less than the Matrix. The Vibe sells at a much higher rate the Matrix.. mike hunt >> That may be your opinion but many more buyers must believe GM and Ford >> products are better in that regard, after all they buy a lot more of GM [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> than comparably sized and equipped domestics, in any even, not more. >> >> mike hunt > You have not been out in the real world and tried to purchase a new vehicle > obviously. Do you want a good example? Go get a total drive home price [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > higher rate the Matrix.. > mike hunt I think I'll trust Edmunds over you on this. Edmunds shows the MSRP, invoice, TMV and "What others are Paying" on the Toyota variant as $1000 to 1600 less than the Pontiac. However, if you have knowledge that Edmunds is wrong, I suggest you contact them and straighten them out. > >> That may be your opinion but many more buyers must believe GM and Ford > >> products are better in that regard, after all they buy a lot more of GM [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >> >> than comparably sized and equipped domestics, in any even, not more. > >> >> mike hunt I have no intention of teaching a class in a NG, you are free to believe whatever you choose. Pontiac dealers offer higher trade price, lower interest rates and fewer add ons. I suggest you go out into the real world and see for yourself what it actually cost to DRIVE HOME an automobile today. There is a lot more to it than the selling price. On can go to three different dealers of the same brand and get three different drive home prices on the exact same vehicle. A smart buyer negotiates a total drive home price, not a selling price ;) mike hunt . >> You have not been out in the real world and tried to purchase a new > vehicle [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > http://www.SecureIX.com *** > I have no intention of teaching a class in a NG, you are free to believe > whatever you choose. Pontiac dealers offer higher trade price, lower [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > home price, not a selling price ;) > mike hunt No one is asking you to teach a class in a NG. You aren't competent to do it. You have less credibility than Edmunds. Edmunds says the Matrix is cheaper. If you want to take issue with that, contact Edmunds or post a persuasive argument, grounded in checkable facts. > >> You have not been out in the real world and tried to purchase a new > > vehicle [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > > http://www.SecureIX.com *** Ten years experience as former Group Sales Manger for one of the largest mega dealership groups, that operates in six east cost states and sells nearly every brand you can name, says I have more sales knowledge in my little finger than you will acquire for Edmonds in a lifetime. The things you continue to post on a subject of which you obviously have little or no knowledge, merely an opinion, proves that. If anybody came into any of our stores with a three year old trade we could sell them any new vehicle of any brand at whatever price they thought was reasonable, even if it was way below our net invoice. You can bet the farm that when they left the store we made at least $1,000 or more net profit on the drive home price and we had their trade to retail as well LOL mike hunt >> I have no intention of teaching a class in a NG, you are free to believe >> whatever you choose. Pontiac dealers offer higher trade price, lower [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> drive >> home price, not a selling price ;) >> mike hunt > > No one is asking you to teach a class in a NG. You aren't competent to do > it. ww.SecureIX.com *** > Ten years experience as former Group Sales Manger for one of the largest > mega dealership groups, that operates in six east cost states and sells > nearly every brand you can name, says I have more sales knowledge in my > little finger than you will acquire for Edmonds in a lifetime. The things > you continue to post on a subject of which you obviously have little or no > knowledge, merely an opinion, proves that. The $1000 to $1600 figure I set out isn't just my opinion. I got it from Edmunds. I didn't bother to provide a link but I named the source. If you can't find information close to those figures on Edmunds, feel free to repost and I'll tell you exactly how I found them. If you know more than Edmunds, I highly recommend you contact them at once. I'm sure they'd be delighted to get the benefit of your expertise to improve their service and would shower rich rewards upon you. In the interim, it's your unsupported say-so against Edmunds. Guess who I believe? > If anybody came into any of our stores with a three year old trade we could > sell them any new vehicle of any brand at whatever price they thought was > reasonable, even if it was way below our net invoice. You can bet the farm > that when they left the store we made at least $1,000 or more net profit on > the drive home price and we had their trade to retail as well LOL > mike hunt Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't care about "drive home price," whatever you think the computation for that may be. I care about value and automotive expense. Take some accounting and finance classes to learn how to calculate "expense." > >> I have no intention of teaching a class in a NG, you are free to believe > >> whatever you choose. Pontiac dealers offer higher trade price, lower [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > ww.SecureIX.com *** http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_financial_headaches_gm/index.htm "Management woes deepened at General Motors Corp. this week as the chief financial officer for the North American unit leaves and a ratings firm knocks the auto maker further into junk status." "And Moody's Investors Service has downgraded GM one more notch, citing fears the auto maker could resort to a declaration of bankruptcy if it cannot reduce costs and get its financial house in order." How long can GM go on giving away cars and $1000 with each? You better buy as many as you can or what? An obvious solution might be to produce fewer cars because they might then gain $1000 per car Unfortunately it is not so Even if they did not produce any cars there are a lot of obligations many years in the future Lots of employees sit today in the JOBS bank and do nothing on full pay The pension plans are what is really killing GM The bancruptcy speculation reports from various sources are increasing Interestingly nobody seems to want GMAC either!!! "The agency also questions the strength of finance arm General Motors Acceptance Corp., in which GM has been unable to sell a majority stake." Bullshit. And besides, I don't give a sh.t about "comparably sized and equipped." I care about "comparable quality and reliability" which doesn't exist in the US market. nate > That is what I meant by greedy American consumers with no regard for their > own economy. Foreign vehicles generally cost 20% to 30% more to drive home [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >>>>like; >>>>stuff now handed off to China.  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel You forgot to say in my opinion, but it is that of a minority, since buyers by more GM and Ford vehicles than buy Toyotas ;) mike hunt > Bullshit. And besides, I don't give a sh.t about "comparably sized and > equipped." I care about "comparable quality and reliability" which [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >>>>>like; >>>>>stuff now handed off to China. It's a rare person that actually believes that GM makes a better product than Toyota, unless you're talking about specialty vehicles like a 'vette or GTO. I imagine most of their remaining sales are due to deep discounts and attractive financing, with a pinch of residual "buy American" sentiment thrown in. nate (not even a Toyota fan, but if Germany were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth, I'd certainly go to the Land of the Rising Sun before buying American these days.) > You forgot to say in my opinion, but it is that of a minority, since buyers > by more GM and Ford vehicles than buy Toyotas ;) [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > replace "fly" with "com" to reply. > > http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel You are free to spend you money wherever you please, but like I said your opinion is that of a minority. Indeed more buyers must think Toyota makes the best mid size car, because they buy more Camrys than any mid size car, but GM sells far more cars than Toyota No matter how you chose to spin it GM not only sells more cars than Toyota, GM sell more trucks than Toyota and more SUVs than Toyota The three domestics still sell more vehicles, 57%, than ALL of the twenty odd other import brands combined. The real 'survey,' of what buyer think of who makes the better vehicles, shows in the total annual sales figures on which vehicles they are willing to spend their hard earned money. . Toyota does not come in first, not second, not even third but fourth, period mike hunt > It's a rare person that actually believes that GM makes a better > product than Toyota, unless you're talking about specialty vehicles [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] >> > replace "fly" with "com" to reply. >> > http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Um, Mike, you're just wrong, I've already posted that Toyota is ahead of Chrysler model YTD as well as for the month of January. All of the big three are trending down while Toyota is picking up steam. Again, I'm not a big Toyota fan but you have to wake up and face the facts like a big boy, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalalalala" isn't going to solve the problem. It's pretty obvious that GM and Ford especially build crap, overpriced cars, and the market trends are reflecting that. nate > You are free to spend you money wherever you please, but like I said your > opinion is that of a minority. Indeed more buyers must think Toyota makes [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > >> > replace "fly" with "com" to reply. > >> > http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Perhaps in your world and the Toyota media reports it is obvious, but in the real world GM is still number one in total annual sales of car trucks and SUVs in the US. Ford is number two, Chrysler is number three and Toyota is number four. The fact is the domestic brands are selling MORE vehicles in the US than they did five years ago, not fewer. The only downward trend as you reference is in market share of an ever growing market. What is actually going on in the US market is that it has grown buy nearly 9,000,000 vehicles over the past ten years. The only vehicle Toyota sells in the US in large numbers is the Camry and its total sales numbers for 2005 are actually down from the 2004 total by 3%. Toyotas growth. like every other manufacture over the past five years has been in light trucks and SUVs. Within the last two years it has been the introduction of more Lexus models and the addition of Scion line The largest growth in non domestic CAR sales, is in Korean cars, not Japanese. Search Automotive news for the real world figures, WBMA mike hunt > Um, Mike, you're just wrong, I've already posted that Toyota is ahead > of Chrysler model YTD as well as for the month of January. All of the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >> mike hunt > Perhaps in your world and the Toyota media reports it is obvious, but in the > real world GM is still number one in total annual sales of car trucks and > SUVs in the US. Ford is number two, Chrysler is number three and Toyota is > number four. Not true, Toyota is a strong #3 and gaining on Ford. > The fact is the domestic brands are selling MORE vehicles in > the US than they did five years ago, not fewer. The only downward trend as > you reference is in market share of an ever growing market. True. However, losing market share is a bad thing if you want to remain number one. The only reason they are selling more vehicles is, as you say, the market is growing. If that stops, what do you think will happen to the growth potential of the Big Three? I don't know what point you're trying to prove, but you're not proving it very well. Things are looking bleak for the Big Three and looking up for the imports. I'm not saying that that's the way I want it to be, but that's the way it is. nate You are entitled to you own opinion but as I said it that of a minority.. mike hunt >> Perhaps in your world and the Toyota media reports it is obvious, but in >> the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > nate > Perhaps in your world and the Toyota media reports it is obvious, but in the > real world GM is still number one in total annual sales of car trucks and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Search Automotive news for the real world figures, WBMA > mike hunt Like this? http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA412616.PDF This the report you meant? The one that shows Toyota market share growing in both car and truck segments? And overall? That shows GM and Ford market share declining in both car and truck sements? And overall? That shows GM and Ford absolute unit sales in cars and truck and overall DOWN in "an ever growing market" last year? It would be most entertaining to see the revenue on this chart, too. Considering the size of their declared losses, it can't be a pretty picture. And N8N was right, Toyota is ahead of Chrysler in cars. Given the source he cited, this was a true statement. And the Koreans are selling more cars but they're not gaining significant market share. At least, not at the expense of the Japanese. Now, you can put all the lipstick on GM that you want but it won't change the fact that GM's got a problem. Declining market share tells it all. Around here, if you sell more while losing market share, you will be replaced. Growing market share is where the profit is. > > Um, Mike, you're just wrong, I've already posted that Toyota is ahead > > of Chrysler model YTD as well as for the month of January. All of the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >> > >> mike hunt You are picking the figures you want to see. GM was down in 2005 from 2004 but my point still stands, total domestic sales are up over five years ago, not down, including GM. Toyota may indeed be selling more cars than Chrysler at this point but over half of all new vehicle sales in the US are light trucks and SUVs. Chrysler is still third in totals sales in the US. They sell far more trucks than Toyota. In fact Chrysler sells more Ram trucks than Toyota best selling vehicle, the Camry. When it comes to trucks and SUVs Toyota is an 'also ran' not even one model in the list of top selling vehicles. The ram truck is number three in individual model sales in the US, above the Camry. The best selling vehicle in the county is not a car, it is the Ford F150. It sells at a rate nearly double that of the Camry. Ford F Series trucks are the best selling vehicles in the world, as well as GM light trucks from Chevy and GMC, individually they sell more each than Lexus, Toyota and Scion sells cars, trucks and SUVs combined. The number two selling vehicle is a truck as well, the Chevy Silverado. I've already said the domestics share of the growing vehicle market in the US is down, but the domestic still sell more vehicles than all of the more than 20 import manufactures combined. Whether you chose to agree or not is not important mike hunt >> Perhaps in your world and the Toyota media reports it is obvious, but in > the [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Around here, if you sell more while losing market share, you will be > replaced. Growing market share is where the profit is. > You are picking the figures you want to see. GM was down in 2005 from 2004 > but my point still stands, total domestic sales are up over five years ago, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > not important > mike hunt Yeah. The Street picks and chooses its numbers, too. That's why GM and Ford get a "junk" credit rating. You can pick and choose all the numbers you want. The bottom line is GM is losing money. Toyota's making money. Here, I'll pick and choose some more numbers for you... Did you notice that Camry sales just about equal Impala sales ADDED TO Malibu sales? Did you notice that Toyota sold more Camrys than GM sold cars branded as Pontiacs AND Saturns? Well, I subtracted out the Vibe, of course, because it's actually a Toyota. Did you notice this? http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/REG/60224012/1003 Toyota's dropping the price on the '07 Camry. Not by much but it won't hurt their unit sales, will it? I wonder how many Camry hybrids they'll sell? They've been in the hybrid business for, what? 5 years, now? People have built up trust in Toyota's hybrids and Toyota gets to charge a LOT of extra money for a hybrid. That has to help profitability. I wonder how well GM's '06 hybrids are doing? What's that? They don't have one? Wow. There's an opportunity missed. By 5 years or so. > >> Perhaps in your world and the Toyota media reports it is obvious, but in > > the [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Around here, if you sell more while losing market share, you will be > > replaced. Growing market share is where the profit is. Who ever said anything about who was currently making money? As to hybrids they account for less than 1% of the total market. Most buyers are smart enough to realize the premium price they must pay to drive home a hybrid, will buy ALL of the fuel they will use in a conventionally powered car of the same size with the same equipment, for the thee or four years that the average new vehicle buyer keeps their vehicle before replacing it with another new vehicle. That what I figured, you were not discussing facts, buy rather your biased opinion. You are obviously are just one more of those Toyota owners that love to go into other brand NGs to try and justify to themselves why they spent so much more money to buy the car they now realize is just a car like every other brand, and no better. I do not own a GM product, just trying to point out that some of the anti GM, anti domestic stuff posted by others in this NG has not been factual. When those that are posting that crap can't prove their point they try to change the subject of the discussion. The fact remains GM sells more cars than Toyota and far more cars truck and SUVs than all of Toyota at a rate of more than three to one. Anything else is opinion, period Bye Bye ;) mike hunt >> You are picking the figures you want to see. GM was down in 2005 from > 2004 [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > http://www.SecureIX.com *** > Who ever said anything about who was currently making money? Me. If your cars are attractive to people, you have innovative, low-cost manufacturing and your warranty costs are low, you will make money building cars. Making money is evidence of these qualities. > As to hybrids > they account for less than 1% of the total market. Most buyers are smart [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > average new vehicle buyer keeps their vehicle before replacing it with > another new vehicle. Are hybrids going to save money at current gas prices? For most people, probably not. At higher gas prices? For more people, the answer will be yes. It can still be economical to drive, since its resale value appears to be very high (Edmunds suggests over $19K for a 2004 with reasonable mileage but as more hybrids make it to market, the Prius will lose this edge). Are they important to a company's marketing image? Yes. Can a company get people into their showrooms, make money and gain market share by offering them? Probably. It certainly looks like part of a winning strategy for Toyota. Toyota's on their third-generation hybrid. GM hasn't got one in production yet. Which company is looking to the future? Which company will people think is building cars for the future? Toyota. Say, does the base Impala come with a DOHC V6 engine? No? An OHV engine, like my Grandad bought in the Fifties? How about the "first-ever G6," does the base G6 have variable valve timing? No? If you pay the extra $2K or so for the V6 G6, do you get DOHC? No? You know, one can argue that, in the grand scheme of things, maybe these features don't make a lot of difference in the performance of the car as a whole But, race cars have DOHC engines, don't they? And variable valve timing, that's new technology, isn't it? So, if a car offers these features, it's going to be regarded as newer and better, isn't it? Which car has these things? > That what I figured, you were not discussing facts, buy rather your biased > opinion. You are obviously are just one more of those Toyota owners that > love to go into other brand NGs As you prowl the .Toyota group? Hahahaha. > to try and justify to themselves why they > spent so much more money to buy the car they now realize is just a car like > every other brand, and no better. I usually just read this group. I generally don't post in .GM or .Ford until I see some sort of ignorant blather from the likes of you. I don't need to justify my car purchase to myself, either. The car does that every month when it doesn't go in for repairs. If I decide to sell it and get a good price, it will justify itself again. When I put my foot down and leap away from the light (well, leap is relative, it's a mini-van), it justifies itself again. > I do not own a GM product, just trying > to point out that some of the anti GM, anti domestic stuff posted by others [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is opinion, period Bye Bye ;) > mike hunt And, the fact remains that GM is losing market share and money. That's not opinion. Is it my opinion that GM doesn't sell a hybrid? GM has serious trouble on its hands and pretending things are rosy is not the way to salvation. This is more than a GM problem, this is a serious national economic problem. And GM outsells Toyota "at a rate of three to one" is your unsubstantiated opinion. Got a credible source for that? > >> You are picking the figures you want to see. GM was down in 2005 from > > 2004 [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > course, because it's actually a Toyota. > > Did you notice this? http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/REG/60224012/1003 > > Toyota's dropping the price on the '07 Camry. Not by much but it won't > > hurt [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > >> > Around here, if you sell more while losing market share, you will be > >> > replaced. Growing market share is where the profit is. |
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
|
©2008 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.