Obama's double talk?

[top gun]

I was tired and didn't proof read. It's also possible I mistakenly thought the /color was a /quote. In either case, I would have assumed that most rational people would realize that the smurfy colored text wasn't mine, given you are the only one that habitually colors his text blue.

Why I would think you would recognize your own text, is an embarrassing case of over estimating you. I shall redouble my effort to lower my expectations.

Calm down Andy! You were tired and didn't proof read... it's no big deal. It was just very jumbled but I obviously figured it out... it's OK.

So in your world, being the number two highest selling auto company on the planet, and being number one for (what... 80 years or so?) is making cars people didn't want?

Andy, Andy, Andy the company is broke. They needed 10's of billions of dollars just to not go completely bankrupt. They could be the number one car company of all times and that would make no difference. Sure they sell a lot of cars but in the overall picture they don't have near the market share here in America they once had... not even remotely close... you know that.

Why is GM going out of business so bad to you? Do you understand what is going to happen in a very short time? GM is going to lay off the vast majority of it's workers. The same thing that would happen in bankruptcy court. GM is going to can the legacy costs imposed on them by Unions. The same thing that would happen in Bankruptcy court. GM is going to close a bunch of plants and dealerships. The same thing that would happen in Bankruptcy court.

In short, what you are saying you don't want them to do, is exactly what they are doing. The only difference is, they sucked down billions in government taxes, that your daughters children are going to have to pay back.

What they will do is can the repetitive, carbon copy, self competing brands and probably be just Chevrolet and Cadillac. The UAW will stay in place... their contracts and benefits will be modified and not just thrown out. There will also be restrictions put on executive pay and dividends. The reduction in brands will lead to the closing of some plants and the loss of some jobs. GM will be leaner, meaner and greener... turn around and be cutting edge again. The government will start to get their money back and they will be out of this whole deal.

A similar thing was done in the past with Chrysler and the government did quite well getting all their investment back.

Since neither of us are in a position to know the reasons behind their actions, I would assume our opinions are just that. Beside, I wager neither of us own voting stock in GM, and thus have no real reports on the choices being made, and why.

That said, Saturn is doing pretty well. Why they didn't just make better Chevys is a bit irrelevant now. If you want to take the job of CEO of GM, and try and build a better car, by all means. Might give you a new perspective on the hard choices management has to make.

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their little butts on the ground when they hop!

I'm just simply looking at how it turned out in reality... they are broke... and they obviously have way to many name tags.

Ah, and in your world, cutting a bunch of name plates, closing dozens of plants, laying off thousands of union workers... is doing something about losing market share?

It's called reorganizing Andy. What they're doing is broken. It's a very standard thing to do to sell off and/or cut back to make the core company stronger, more competitive and have greater cash flow.

Given your high marks for Hybrids (while not buying one yourself), GM followed that plan and made a bunch of hybrids. Now that gasoline has dropped in price, hybrid sales have sunk like a rock. Clearly your plan for GM would be a failure.

I do like Hybrids. But Andy I've been trying to tell you forever... I'm an old custom Harley & custom car guy. Just because I think Hybrids are a great idea doesn't mean I don't love sharp performance cars. I've had everything from a Shelby Mustang to a Vett.

But as I've gotten a little older now I've settled back to regular gas cars that are everyday sharp and still get good gas mileage... as regular drivers.

My wife's Wolfsburg edition VW Jetta is a perfect example. Great, safe, sporty car that she gets about 34 MPG with on the highway. And my Audi is just raising that bar to off the hook awsome... Audi is VW's high-line brand with Porsche as an investment partner.

(I know I know... you want to see more pics of the awesome A6!) I'll attach...

Hybrids will over time become a bigger and bigger portion of vehicles on the road. Heck GM has the Volt coming out soon and it goes to first 40 miles without using a drop of gas.

To the person just having to be sure they can get to work they need to know they can afford the fuel.

Two things are guaranteed. Hybrids will get cheaper... and gas prices will fluctuate from where they are now to very high.

Here's your pics...

 

[Andy]

Andy, Andy, Andy the company is broke. They needed 10's of billions of dollars just to not go completely bankrupt. They could be the number one car company of all times and that would make no difference. Sure they sell a lot of cars but in the overall picture they don't have near the market share here in America they once had... not even remotely close... you know that.

Logically speaking... if the company is the number one car company of all time (which until just last year they were), and yet they are going broke as you suggest... What might be the problem there?

They are selling tons of cars, obviously, and yet going broke. From the stance of a business man, what generally is the cause of going broke while selling tons of product? This isn't hard. It's basic economics 101.

Here's an off hand theory... maybe... just maybe... labor costs are too high?

What they will do is can the repetitive, carbon copy, self competing brands and probably be just Chevrolet and Cadillac. The UAW will stay in place... their contracts and benefits will be modified and not just thrown out. There will also be restrictions put on executive pay and dividends. The reduction in brands will lead to the closing of some plants and the loss of some jobs. GM will be leaner, meaner and greener... turn around and be cutting edge again. The government will start to get their money back and they will be out of this whole deal.

A similar thing was done in the past with Chrysler and the government did quite well getting all their investment back.

Yeah, I see how well that worked out. They made the K Car, and went back into insolvency, and ultimately was sold twice, and now will be chopped up again.

Another Top Gun example of "government success".

With the thousands on thousands of K Cars produced, it's amazing how few you can still find. You have a better chance of finding the Chevy Caprice from the 80s, than any of the hundreds of thousands of K-cars made. Obviously because they were junk.

Imagine that... government supported junk. Who woulda thunk it. Yugo anyone?

It's called reorganizing Andy. What they're doing is broken. It's a very standard thing to do to sell off and/or cut back to make the core company stronger, more competitive and have greater cash flow.

The same thing that happens without billions of tax dollars tossed in the company.

Hybrids will over time become a bigger and bigger portion of vehicles on the road. Heck GM has the Volt coming out soon and it goes to first 40 miles without using a drop of gas.

Funny, I haven't heard much good news about the Volt. Sounds like demand for it has dropped to oblivion. If they do come out for it, great. But I doubt it will be a company saving product.

Two things are guaranteed. Hybrids will get cheaper... and gas prices will fluctuate from where they are now to very high.

We'll see.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Calm down Andy! You were tired and didn't proof read... it's no big deal. It was just very jumbled but I obviously figured it out... it's OK.



Andy, Andy, Andy the company is broke. They needed 10's of billions of dollars just to not go completely bankrupt. They could be the number one car company of all times and that would make no difference. Sure they sell a lot of cars but in the overall picture they don't have near the market share here in America they once had... not even remotely close... you know that.



What they will do is can the repetitive, carbon copy, self competing brands and probably be just Chevrolet and Cadillac. The UAW will stay in place... their contracts and benefits will be modified and not just thrown out. There will also be restrictions put on executive pay and dividends. The reduction in brands will lead to the closing of some plants and the loss of some jobs. GM will be leaner, meaner and greener... turn around and be cutting edge again. The government will start to get their money back and they will be out of this whole deal.

A similar thing was done in the past with Chrysler and the government did quite well getting all their investment back.



If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their little butts on the ground when they hop!

I'm just simply looking at how it turned out in reality... they are broke... and they obviously have way to many name tags.



It's called reorganizing Andy. What they're doing is broken. It's a very standard thing to do to sell off and/or cut back to make the core company stronger, more competitive and have greater cash flow.



I do like Hybrids. But Andy I've been trying to tell you forever... I'm an old custom Harley & custom car guy. Just because I think Hybrids are a great idea doesn't mean I don't love sharp performance cars. I've had everything from a Shelby Mustang to a Vett.

But as I've gotten a little older now I've settled back to regular gas cars that are everyday sharp and still get good gas mileage... as regular drivers.

My wife's Wolfsburg edition VW Jetta is a perfect example. Great, safe, sporty car that she gets about 34 MPG with on the highway. And my Audi is just raising that bar to off the hook awsome... Audi is VW's high-line brand with Porsche as an investment partner.

(I know I know... you want to see more pics of the awesome A6!) I'll attach...

Hybrids will over time become a bigger and bigger portion of vehicles on the road. Heck GM has the Volt coming out soon and it goes to first 40 miles without using a drop of gas.

To the person just having to be sure they can get to work they need to know they can afford the fuel.

Two things are guaranteed. Hybrids will get cheaper... and gas prices will fluctuate from where they are now to very high.

Here's your pics...

I agree the gas prices will go up, Obama and the lib house and senate will see to that. What is truely happening is they are trying force people into driving what they want them to drive, and don't give a damn what the consumer wants to drive. Others are indoctrinated with this guilt that if they don't drive hybrid they are killing the planet, and this based on the myth of Global Warming! I would never put my wife or kids inside one of those hybrid death traps. I have seen too many of them in the local junk yard after collisions!

Also this is a bit different than the first Chrysler bail out you referenced....as I have heard no mention of a repayment plan.

I would like to know when bankruptcy became against the law? Also if they were to big to fail before, now we have billions of tax dollars tied up in them, haven't we made the to big to fail argument worse now? This is why the government should stop exceeding it's constitutional limits, and stay out of the private sector. If someone fails someone else will fill that gap in the market just as it always has in the past.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Why I wouldn't let a member of my family drive or ride in one of these things.

This is of a Prius at 35 mph.......imagine 60+ on the hwy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84MYFxvBrMw

The majority of these small car crash test's are deceiving, because the accident takes place in a controlled environment at speeds that many times don't exceed 45 mph.

This one at 40 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE_eUP_BAcU

Not to mention safety features in a tiny car are tiny also, notice the air bags don't seem to protect very well. Especially the steering wheel air bag.

 

[top gun]

Logically speaking... if the company is the number one car company of all time (which until just last year they were), and yet they are going broke as you suggest... What might be the problem there?

They are selling tons of cars, obviously, and yet going broke. From the stance of a business man, what generally is the cause of going broke while selling tons of product? This isn't hard. It's basic economics 101.

Here's an off hand theory... maybe... just maybe... labor costs are too high?

They can't get people to pay a higher price because let's face it many (most) of their cars are boring and really haven't been all that good. That's exactly why Toyota has moved ahead.

GM's whole business plan was bad. They relied solely on big SUV's and trucks to carry them. They had little insight or just didn't care about the possibility of skyrocketing fuel prices.

I agree that the only way for companies like GM to be viable again is for exactly what is going to happen to happen. The Unions will have to take cuts. The number of executives and management will be cut, and their pay just like the Union pay will also be decreased. The company will sell off and cut brands to make the core company a strong self supporting company again.

In the long run it was inevitable with all the global competition this would happen. The quality of cars outside of the American big three just caught up and in some areas surpassed. But there's no reason if GM builds more new car types like the new Malibu, the upcoming new Camero and Volt and keeps working the Hybrid technology so Americans and still buy larger but still fuel efficient cars... they'll come out of this better off.

I'm just like any other shopper. When we went out looking to buy my wife's car we drove the Chevy Cobalt... we drove the Ford Focus... we drove the Chrysler Sebring. They couldn't hold the jock strap of a VW Jetta on their best day... that's just a fact... all one has to do is just go drive all 4 cars.

Yeah, I see how well that worked out. They made the K Car, and went back into insolvency, and ultimately was sold twice, and now will be chopped up again.

It worked out that the government got every dime back plus interest. To me that's working out.

The K Car was a great economic success... be it an uninspiring car. But for the looking for good gas mileage times... it was a hit!

But then what did Chrysler do? They didn't follow that up by developing cool looking, good gas mileage, super dependable cars did they? While Honda was focusing on Civics and the kids went crazy over them and Toyota came up with the best family car the Camry...

Dodge/Chrysler slipped back and came out with the gas guzzling Dakota... and a lot of Hemi powered cars & trucks.

Like Lee Iaccoca said... Lead, Follow, or get out of the way. They didn't lead. They didn't follow. So now they're set up to possibly be put out of the way.

Personally I was never a fan of letting Chrysler in on this latest bailout... but I understood they wanted to give all three companies equal access.

Chrysler may end up gone with only their Jeep line and maybe some kind of a truck division left. And I'm almost positive GM will sooner or later just be Chevrolet & Cadillac.

Like you said... we will see...

 

[Andy]

They can't get people to pay a higher price because let's face it many (most) of their cars are boring and really haven't been all that good. That's exactly why Toyota has moved ahead.

Ok, back to business 101.... The competition, even from other domestic cars, are selling for roughly the same price for the same type of car. Nevertheless, GM was losing money on every car sold.

So saying Toyota has moved ahead is irrelevant. No one is going to pay more money for two generally identical cars. It's not going to happen ever.

OOo but what if they are super snazzy and great! Right, other manufacturers are going to make super snazzy and great cars too. The same problem remains. Toyota can sell the same super snazzy and great car, for less, because they have lower labor costs. Again, this is basic economics.

Moreover, as we discussed before, one of the reason GM cars are more cheaply built, is because they have higher labor cost, and therefore have put more effort into reducing material cost.

If you want GM to put more money into the quality of the car, they have to cut the money they are putting elsewhere... namely Union contracts.

GM's whole business plan was bad. They relied solely on big SUV's and trucks to carry them. They had little insight or just didn't care about the possibility of skyrocketing fuel prices.

Well, let's put you in charge of GM. You look at the balance sheets and realize you are losing money on small cars that don't cover the cost of labor. But making money on large vehicles that do.

You have two options. You can try and buck the Unions by cutting labor cost, which will cause all the idiots on leftist lane, scream about you being against the working man...

Or you can bolster investment into larger vehicles that can cover the cost of Union contracts. Which do you do?

Now, of course I'm for them screwing over the Union, and reducing labor costs so that they can make money on all their cars. But of course they want to be "liked" by everyone too, and likely did the latter plan out of not wanting to incite public crying by liberal idiots over good business.

Its a bit like Exxon. Exxon had the choice of either investing in so-called "green-tech" or drilling for oil. Instead of following the politically correct formula of supporting green-tech, they did exactly what they were created to do, drill for oil and sell it. That the reason they are doing better than any other oil company on the planet right now. Instead of blowing the stock holders money on useless technologies that are withering right now, they are making good money.

It worked out that the government got every dime back plus interest. To me that's working out.

Oh, so the goal really isn't for the company to be better off, and not go bankrupt or be bought out, or close plants and send people home?

With such a limited definition of "working out", I can see how you would claim it did.

The K Car was a great economic success... be it an uninspiring car. But for the looking for good gas mileage times... it was a hit!

Short term, sure. The company is bankrupt now. Meanwhile the K-car is in the trash heap of gladly forgotten relics.

But then what did Chrysler do? They didn't follow that up by developing cool looking, good gas mileage, super dependable cars did they? While Honda was focusing on Civics and the kids went crazy over them and Toyota came up with the best family car the Camry...

Cool looking civic? That's like an oxymoron. The cool kids where I grew up, had Camaros, or Jeep Cherokees. No one drove a Civic unless they sucked.
That said, what's the difference between a nasty 90s Civic, and a 90s Dodge Colt? They were nearly identical.

Which is which? By the way, they both got the same gas mileage too.

 

[Andy]

Why I wouldn't let a member of my family drive or ride in one of these things.

This is of a Prius at 35 mph.......imagine 60+ on the hwy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84MYFxvBrMw

The majority of these small car crash test's are deceiving, because the accident takes place in a controlled environment at speeds that many times don't exceed 45 mph.

This one at 40 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE_eUP_BAcU

Not to mention safety features in a tiny car are tiny also, notice the air bags don't seem to protect very well. Especially the steering wheel air bag.

I'm actually not against the Prius. I remember when I sat down with an engineer who purchased a Prius, and crunched the savings numbers. At the end, I pointed out how he could have saved thousands of dollars with about a dozen different cars on the market, and that was back when gas was $4/gal.

Although he was shocked by this, and agreed with me completely, he also said he still would rather have his Prius because he liked being the one guy one the block with a high-tech hybrid.

People who don't understand the arguements I explain about the Prius, think I'm against hybrid or high-tech solutions. I am not. I'm against false information in their support. As long as you don't lie about false savings, I am for people getting whatever car they so choose.

This guy, whom I'm related to, has no problem blowing thousands of dollars to be "the tech-car-nerd on the block". Which is fine. Obviously he can afford it when he's earned $100K income most of his life, and has a $300K lake-front house on Buckeye Lake. And I'm all for this. I am FOR people buying whatever car they want.

If everyone wants a Ford Pinto, I'm for it. I would think they are stupid, but I'm for people being able to exercise their freedom to be stupid. Just like if everyone wants to smoke themselves into a slow cancerous death, I'm for it. I'll think they are stupid, but they have the freedom to be stupid.

The thing I'm against, in regards to hybrids, is false information. Like claiming you are going to save a ton of money by getting a high priced car. When you crunch the numbers, you never come out ahead. So it's a lie, and all lies need to be smacked with the truth.

Similarly, high crash ratings. A ton of people don't get that larger vehicles are tested and rated on a different standard. A Suburban, that get's a 4/5 rating, will always be much safer than a Prius with a 5/5 rating.

Obviously if you crash head on, into me in my 82 Buick, you are going to die while I might have to do a touch up on the chrome bumper. Yet I promise you the Riviera has a lower rating.

I remember watching a Smart Car FourTwo being tested at freeway speeds. Amusingly the reporters tried to put as much positive spin on the midge mobile as possible. Yet after the crash, the reporter moved towards the driver side door and remarked "the FourTwo did remarkable well.... although it does seem a person couldn't fit in the driver seat anymore".

The camera flashed the front only briefly, possibly to not show the full extent of damage. But in that brief shot, you could see part of the power train where the drivers legs would be, and the steering wheel was pushed so far in, and up, that it was about where the persons face would be.

Tiny cars are more dangerous to be in, no question about it.

 

[asur]

Green cars are more like death traps and a foolish liberal idea.
Yes after many people die in them, then Obama will blame George Bush
for it.

Not sure they will sell though unless gas goes through the roof.

But then time will tell.

 

[Andy]

Green cars are more like death traps and a foolish liberal idea.
Yes after many people die in them, then Obama will blame George Bush
for it.

Not sure they will sell though unless gas goes through the roof.

But then time will tell.

Oh come on now... what could be more safe than a go-cart... er Ford Festiva!

The future of socialized auto manufacturing!

 

[Dr.Who]

Green cars are more like death traps and a foolish liberal idea.
Yes after many people die in them, then Obama will blame George Bush
for it.

Not sure they will sell though unless gas goes through the roof.

But then time will tell.

I suppose that P Obama will do what he can to keep gas prices lower than they were during Bushes last few years. But in time he will do whatever he can to get them to be higher. Manipulating prices is a game to get other goals.

I am with Andy. I want decisions to be made based on truthful facts.

 

[top gun]

I agree the gas prices will go up, Obama and the lib house and senate will see to that. What is truely happening is they are trying force people into driving what they want them to drive, and don't give a damn what the consumer wants to drive. Others are indoctrinated with this guilt that if they don't drive hybrid they are killing the planet, and this based on the myth of Global Warming! I would never put my wife or kids inside one of those hybrid death traps. I have seen too many of them in the local junk yard after collisions!

Also this is a bit different than the first Chrysler bail out you referenced....as I have heard no mention of a repayment plan.

I would like to know when bankruptcy became against the law? Also if they were to big to fail before, now we have billions of tax dollars tied up in them, haven't we made the to big to fail argument worse now? This is why the government should stop exceeding it's constitutional limits, and stay out of the private sector. If someone fails someone else will fill that gap in the market just as it always has in the past.

Well oddly enough I can partially agree with a small portion of what you've said here... very small and not for the same reasons I'm sure.

First... President Obama wasn't even close to being President when gas spiked up to $4.00 plus so It's not he who is causing gas prices to fluctuate... it's the nature of a finite resource.

Secondly... Man's effect on climate and pollution is not a myth. Now we can have an honest debate how bad things are but the fact that there is a problem is well documented.

Third... As most neo-cons you lock in on one thing and can't see the trees for the forest. You say you are "afraid" of driving a Hybrid. You obviously are locked in on a small car like a Prius... which is actually as safe as any car it's size so you are really just against small cars.

But I regress. So your also afraid of Escapes, Mariners, Yukons and Escalades... all come in Hybrid. See TREES - FOREST!

Fourth... The stake we have in these car companies is set up to give the government (the taxpayer) some authority as to how their money is being spent and a financial stake and should these companies survive would be paid back at some point.

Fifth... And something I can somewhat agree with you on... No company should be allowed to ever become "too big to fail". We have been so bedazzled by big business that we have completely forgotten what huge damage big monopolies can do.

Actually this will be better in the future. I'm personally not holding out much hope Chrysler will continue as one of the big three. It may end up just a small sideline company like it's Jeep division. And as I've said before I believe at the end of the day GM will be just Chevy & Cadillac.

So I would agree we should not allow companies to get to big too fail in the first place.



Obama campaign workers were hot... sweet!

 

[top gun]

Andy;92246]Ok, back to business 101.... The competition, even from other domestic cars, are selling for roughly the same price for the same type of car. Nevertheless, GM was losing money on every car sold.

Andy you wouldn't know Business 101 if I hit you in the head with the text book!

So saying Toyota has moved ahead is irrelevant. No one is going to pay more money for two generally identical cars. It's not going to happen ever.

Not irrelevant to Toyota! The fact is their cars were better. Few people were going to pay more for less of a car... that's the truth. People that still bought American often did just because many were cheaper.

OOo but what if they are super snazzy and great! Right, other manufacturers are going to make super snazzy and great cars too. The same problem remains. Toyota can sell the same super snazzy and great car, for less, because they have lower labor costs. Again, this is basic economics.

Moreover, as we discussed before, one of the reason GM cars are more cheaply built, is because they have higher labor cost, and therefore have put more effort into reducing material cost.

If you want GM to put more money into the quality of the car, they have to cut the money they are putting elsewhere... namely Union contracts.

The whole company was out of control. There cars were average. They didn't quickly enough get on board with GOOD QUALITY good gas mileage cars. Vega's, Pinto's, Chevett's and Escort's didn't really count for much quality wise. Civic's and Corolla's did.

There was way to much management getting paid way too much just as Labor contracts and the associated legacy costs hurt. To just pick Labor and beat them up is plain stupid. They didn't design the products... they just put them together as told.

Cool looking civic? That's like an oxymoron. The cool kids where I grew up, had Camaros, or Jeep Cherokees. No one drove a Civic unless they sucked.
That said, what's the difference between a nasty 90s Civic, and a 90s Dodge Colt? They were nearly identical.

Well so at least you admit the cool kids weren't driving 1982 Buicks... we're getting somewhere! Still waiting on that pic of yours!

And I guess they don't get cable or have any of them there Movie Theaters back in that holler where you must live. In the city we kinda had a just huge outbreak everywhere of small import semi-custom/custom cars.

Probably never heard of FAST AND FURIOUS... it was a popular movie that had a major following throughout the US and... well... the world.

 

[Andy]

Andy you wouldn't know Business 101 if I hit you in the head with the text book!

You didn't respond or contradict the point given. Nice try, moving on.

Not irrelevant to Toyota! The fact is their cars were better. Few people were going to pay more for less of a car... that's the truth. People that still bought American often did just because many were cheaper.

GM cars were not selling for less than Toyota cars. They generally were selling for about the same, because if one was cheaper, they'd go for the cheaper car. The problem is Toyota makes a profit on their cars, and GM does not, because of labor costs.

The whole company was out of control. There cars were average. They didn't quickly enough get on board with GOOD QUALITY good gas mileage cars. Vega's, Pinto's, Chevett's and Escort's didn't really count for much quality wise. Civic's and Corolla's did.

There was way to much management getting paid way too much just as Labor contracts and the associated legacy costs hurt. To just pick Labor and beat them up is plain stupid. They didn't design the products... they just put them together as told.

You keep saying things like this, but I'm not seeing that reflected in reality. For example, Motor Trend did an article on comparing mid-size sedans. Accord, vs Camry, vs Altima, vs Malibu. So how well did the Malibu do? Second place. Does second place in the top 4 mid-size sedans sound like "The whole company was out of control!" to you? Well it doesn't to me. If they finished 4th, or even 3rd, maybe.

And I still point out they were the second largest auto maker on the planet for 2008. That doesn't sound like 'OUT OF CONTROL!" to me.

Well so at least you admit the cool kids weren't driving 1982 Buicks... we're getting somewhere! Still waiting on that pic of yours!

LOL I was never a cool kid, nor do I intend to start acting like the rest of the crowd any time soon. I'm my own man. What other people think of me (which is all being 'cool' is) was not, nor ever will be, important to me. I am, who I am. You don't like it, well... sucks to be you then.

Probably never heard of FAST AND FURIOUS... it was a popular movie that had a major following throughout the US and... well... the world.

Most idiotic looking film. The previews were bad, the plot line was bad, the actors were marginal at best, and every clip I've had the unpleasant experience of seeing, has not show the rest of the movie to be any better. I'm not surprised you liked it.

 

[top gun]

Andy;92383]You didn't respond or contradict the point given. Nice try, moving on.

Nothing to respond to. You were lauding yourself on something you don't have and I simply said that.

GM cars were not selling for less than Toyota cars. They generally were selling for about the same, because if one was cheaper, they'd go for the cheaper car. The problem is Toyota makes a profit on their cars, and GM does not, because of labor costs.

Believe me regardless of sticker you can talk down a Chevy price a ton more than a Toyota. I've done it negotiating deals for friends.

And again it's just stupid to say that every problem that GM had was a Labor cost problem. That simply is not true.

You keep saying things like this, but I'm not seeing that reflected in reality. For example, Motor Trend did an article on comparing mid-size sedans. Accord, vs Camry, vs Altima, vs Malibu. So how well did the Malibu do? Second place. Does second place in the top 4 mid-size sedans sound like "The whole company was out of control!" to you? Well it doesn't to me. If they finished 4th, or even 3rd, maybe.

You know Andy this is why I just ignore you sometimes. You don't care about having an honest conversation and maybe learning something... you just say whatever to be negative.

Go back and look. I bet I've said 10 times that the new Malibu was one of the few really good cars that GM FINALLY came out with. That doesn't change the fact GM has lost major American market share dragging it's heals in general.

And I still point out they were the second largest auto maker on the planet for 2008. That doesn't sound like 'OUT OF CONTROL!" to me.

OK Andy I'll pull it up for you from the ECONOMIST. You'll notice this was even way back in 05.

General Motors is floundering
Nov 17th 2005
From The Economist print edition

FOR years General Motors (GM) was the undisputed titan of the world's car industry, effortlessly dominating everything. Now, to suppliers, employees and pensioners it must seem less like a titan and more like the Titanic, holed below the water-line, sinking slowly by the bow to the sound of loud shocks and bangs as bulkheads give way, one after the other. The chief executive on the bridge, Rick Wagoner, can rush around and bark orders, but to little effect.

At its peak in the early 1960's, the giant controlled over half the American car market and set the standards by which most of the world's manufacturing industry was measured. But it has been more than a generation since GM's dominance went unchallenged and, despite billions of dollars invested in new factories and vehicles, it has suffered a relentless decline in market share (see chart). Earnings have plunged, especially in its core North American market. The good ship GM scraped even more icebergs lately, the most recent being an announcement last week that it would have to restate earnings for 2001, due to improperly booked credits from suppliers. …

LOL I was never a cool kid, nor do I intend to start acting like the rest of the crowd any time soon.

I never had any doubt at all that was true. I believe ya!

Most idiotic looking film. The previews were bad, the plot line was bad, the actors were marginal at best, and every clip I've had the unpleasant experience of seeing, has not show the rest of the movie to be any better. I'm not surprised you liked it.

Didn't say I liked it... said that imports were mega-popular with the younger crowd. Which as with everything I say is simply true.

 

[Andy]

Believe me regardless of sticker you can talk down a Chevy price a ton more than a Toyota. I've done it negotiating deals for friends.

And again it's just stupid to say that every problem that GM had was a Labor cost problem. That simply is not true.

Back to proving my point about you not knowing how business works. Let's review... if cost of labor plus materials, is greater than how much the product can be sold for, only an idiot would assume the problem can't be labor costs.

We've already tackled the foolish "they are not selling cars" theory. They are the second largest auto manufacture on the planet. Now, if people can sell a fraction of the cars, and still be at least profitable, then second on the face of the global should be very profitable.... So the number of cars sold isn't the issue.

We've covered the idiotic gas mileage whine, and the fact is, it isn't true. We've also gone over the ridiculous "they shouldn't have made larger vehicles" theory, with the fact all the imports have gotten larger, and the fact they are still the second highest selling auto manufacture on the planet.

In short, I have systematically shot down all your theories, and you have yet to come up with one single valid counter point.

You know Andy this is why I just ignore you sometimes. You don't care about having an honest conversation and maybe learning something... you just say whatever to be negative.

Go back and look. I bet I've said 10 times that the new Malibu was one of the few really good cars that GM FINALLY came out with. That doesn't change the fact GM has lost major American market share dragging it's heals in general.

GM has made so many carbon copies of imports, that this theory just doesn't fly. About the only thing that could be stated is that GM has a generally cheaper design. Which goes back to high labor costs. In order to remain competitive, they have to cut costs somewhere.

None of that blaw blaw blaw, means that company was out of control. Every company on the planet has up times and down times. The fact GM has lost market share, doesn't mean it's out of control. If you really knew anything about business you'd know that. The CEO of the company I work for, came back from a conference for small corporation, and told us one of the things he learned about small corporations, it that profits and market share fluctuate wildly all the time.

Now the difference is, your profits can fluctuate depending on sales, but as long as you have sales, you should always have a profit. If your selling a million units a year, and you are breaking even, or negative, that says.... <GASP!> that you have a product cost problem! Either material, or... you guessed it... labor! Again, this is business 101.

I never had any doubt at all that was true. I believe ya!

As if I care if you believe me or not. Perhaps if you right about something, or anything, once in awhile, I might value your opinion of me more. I would doubt that will happen anytime in the next 10 years.

Didn't say I liked it... said that imports were mega-popular with the younger crowd. Which as with everything I say is simply true.

Great. Why doesn't it surprise me you want to base future auto development on what most idiotic people in our country think. I know... let's go find the most drugged out, idiot college students, flipping cars over in illegal street racing so they can pretend it's like the movies, and ask them what car they prefer, so we can build it at GM. Brain dead policy making at it's finest. You could be an Obama cabinet member.