Originally posted by: SuperTool
Retiree medical costs should be government's responsibility, not burden on corporations. Otherwise there won't be any companies over 30 years old because they'll be driven out of business by younger companies with less retirees.
You are straight up doom and gloom and do not consider your reasoning.Originally posted by: Bozo Galora
I occasionaly throw something out here just to see the very predictable response.
You people really believe in this virtual reality of "America The Great", and the wonders of Capitalism, and it's ability to somehow overcome all negative outcomes.
You folks have a rationalization for everything.
Anything that intrudes on your perfect little world is instantly rejected, not even considered.
And thats why, when that piano falls on your head, I will gleefully jump up and down, laughing like a hyena.
Because, you see, in the nature of things, stupidity comes with very harsh rewards.
Dream on.
Originally posted by: alent1234
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
This is what happens when unions decide they want free healthcare for life. It costs GM almost $2000 per car to provide retirement benefits. Too bad consumers don't want to pay it.
noooo..... this is what happens when gm doens't have any fuel efficient cars on the road and spends the last 6 years designing suvs when they should be designing cars that can compete with a camry/civic/accord/corrola in gas mileage
they also have no hybrid cars, and their cars don't last nearly as long as toyota or hondas
the honda deal and toyota dealer here in town can't keep thier hybrids on the lot for test drives because they are selling like hotcakes, as are all their high milage cars, you can't beat 5 year 100k powertrain/tranny and 3 year full car warranty
stop blaming unions
how much hybrids were sold last year compared to the entire car market?
I'll give yo ua hint, the percentage is very small and toyota and honda are still losing money on every hybrid they sell
Originally posted by: Bozo Galora
dream on little man
keep rationalizing right up until the minute your whole world collapses
Originally posted by: alent1234
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
This is what happens when unions decide they want free healthcare for life. It costs GM almost $2000 per car to provide retirement benefits. Too bad consumers don't want to pay it.
noooo..... this is what happens when gm doens't have any fuel efficient cars on the road and spends the last 6 years designing suvs when they should be designing cars that can compete with a camry/civic/accord/corrola in gas mileage
they also have no hybrid cars, and their cars don't last nearly as long as toyota or hondas
the honda deal and toyota dealer here in town can't keep thier hybrids on the lot for test drives because they are selling like hotcakes, as are all their high milage cars, you can't beat 5 year 100k powertrain/tranny and 3 year full car warranty
stop blaming unions
how much hybrids were sold last year compared to the entire car market?
I'll give yo ua hint, the percentage is very small and toyota and honda are still losing money on every hybrid they sell
Actually my rationality and realism is precisely what will keep my world from not collapsing.Originally posted by: Bozo Galora
dream on little man
keep rationalizing right up until the minute your whole world collapses
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
We won't lose much by losing the US car companies.
Interesting, when I said that 2 years ago I was jumped all over in here.
No effect huh?
Hmmmmm, with GM one of the U.S. biggest Companies and on the Stock Market too.
Originally posted by: rudder
Even crap can sell if its priced right.
Originally posted by: Stunt
Worst idea ever.Originally posted by: alent1234
GM might have $300 billion in debt, but it also has close to that in receivables
GMAC is one of the largest mortgage lenders in the US
GM needs to spin off the auto division and let it live on it's own without being subsidized by GMAC
The only reason people buy the cars is because of the financing and the ability to sell cars below cost and pay through maintenance and loans.
They are integral businesses, and GM would not be able to compete with the other makers if they separated the two.
Originally posted by: rudder
Even crap can sell if its priced right. The problem is there is such a markup to cover all these costs (idle workers and free healthcare for life deals) you have a car that no one wants to buy because it loses a ton of value once it drives off the lot.
Ford finances its own cars...there would be no reason for any car company to finance their cars through GMAC. The only reason they are so big is because GM is so big.Originally posted by: alent1234
Originally posted by: Stunt
Worst idea ever.Originally posted by: alent1234
GM might have $300 billion in debt, but it also has close to that in receivables
GMAC is one of the largest mortgage lenders in the US
GM needs to spin off the auto division and let it live on it's own without being subsidized by GMAC
The only reason people buy the cars is because of the financing and the ability to sell cars below cost and pay through maintenance and loans.
They are integral businesses, and GM would not be able to compete with the other makers if they separated the two.
GMAC will be able to compete in the financial area
The automotive division I don't think anyone cares about. The whole point is for the management to jump ship to a good company and let the car division die off
Originally posted by: judasmachine
I'd buy a GM if they weren't ugly and they were at least Hybrids.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: judasmachine
I'd buy a GM if they weren't ugly and they were at least Hybrids.
Huh??? According to the P&N experts in here there is no demand, Zero, Nada for Hybrids.
Why would you want to get something no one wants???
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: judasmachine
I'd buy a GM if they weren't ugly and they were at least Hybrids.
Huh??? According to the P&N experts in here there is no demand, Zero, Nada for Hybrids.
Why would you want to get something no one wants???
I say again: Prius demand GREATLY exceeds supply.
People are waiting WEEKS to MONTHS to get their hands on this "no demand" car.
Jason
Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: judasmachine
I'd buy a GM if they weren't ugly and they were at least Hybrids.
Huh??? According to the P&N experts in here there is no demand, Zero, Nada for Hybrids.
Why would you want to get something no one wants???
I say again: Prius demand GREATLY exceeds supply.
People are waiting WEEKS to MONTHS to get their hands on this "no demand" car.
Jason
I *think* he was being sarcastic
Originally posted by: Stunt
Ford finances its own cars...there would be no reason for any car company to finance their cars through GMAC. The only reason they are so big is because GM is so big.Originally posted by: alent1234
Originally posted by: Stunt
Worst idea ever.Originally posted by: alent1234
GM might have $300 billion in debt, but it also has close to that in receivables
GMAC is one of the largest mortgage lenders in the US
GM needs to spin off the auto division and let it live on it's own without being subsidized by GMAC
The only reason people buy the cars is because of the financing and the ability to sell cars below cost and pay through maintenance and loans.
They are integral businesses, and GM would not be able to compete with the other makers if they separated the two.
GMAC will be able to compete in the financial area
The automotive division I don't think anyone cares about. The whole point is for the management to jump ship to a good company and let the car division die off
GM needs to get its a$$ in gear with their cars...not dick around with company structure/business areas.
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: rudder
Even crap can sell if its priced right. The problem is there is such a markup to cover all these costs (idle workers and free healthcare for life deals) you have a car that no one wants to buy because it loses a ton of value once it drives off the lot.
As with many people, you're take on how pricing works is pretty unrealistic.
GM, like any monopolistically competitive company (highly differentiated products which are never-the-less near-perfect substitutes for each other), can only choose one of two things: how many vehicles to produce, or what price to charge. When they choose a price, and 'guess' the wrong amount of production to match, you see the massive incentive programs to move vehicles off sales lots.
I would guess that about half of American manufacturers' quality concerns come from legitimate quality problems in the 80s thorugh the mid-90s, and the other half comes from the implied quality increase that people created when the auto pact restricted the supply of japanese vehicles, lead to a preponderence of higher end models being shipped to maximize benefit under a quota, lead to somewhat elevated retail prices, and highly elevated resale prices.
For example, GMs midsize/fullsize (whatever) malibus and related vehicles consistently rank as some of teh best designed and built vehicles in their class. But they don't hold resale value like an Accord or Camry, because the perception doesn't match the reality. On the other hand, until the most recent refresh, the Cavalier and Sunfire had a well-deserved reputation for being crap (I've heard only good things about them since the new models in about 2002).
The point is that the loss of value and the retail price have nothing to do with 'costs' and nothing to do with 'markup'. They are a function of a market that operates on information, some of which is accurate, and some of which is not. General Motors can try to improve its reputation, and one way to do that is to avoid dumping vehicles; when a new cavlier or sunfire sold for $10k (canadian) for a couple of years, compared to a minimum of $14k for any competing vehicle, this did nothing to improve perceptions of quality; essentially GM chose to sell volume, rather than attempt to sell quality. But costs have no effect on price; they simply determine if a company can stay in business, given the price available for their product at any given production level.
Of course consumers have to make their choices based on the reality that everyone else holds as well as their own, if they are to maximize benefit:
I would have no preference for an Accord over a Malibu, based on my perception of quality, butI would have to consider the total cost of owning the two vehicles, and the reality of the used car market might make me choose the Honda, if I were buying new. The opposite occurs buying used; japanese cars are well made, but market perception of how well made they are outstrips my perception of the real difference; thus I can maximize my benefit by purchsing what I consider an 'undervalued' domestic car in the used market.
Originally posted by: alent1234
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: rudder
Even crap can sell if its priced right. The problem is there is such a markup to cover all these costs (idle workers and free healthcare for life deals) you have a car that no one wants to buy because it loses a ton of value once it drives off the lot.
As with many people, you're take on how pricing works is pretty unrealistic.
GM, like any monopolistically competitive company (highly differentiated products which are never-the-less near-perfect substitutes for each other), can only choose one of two things: how many vehicles to produce, or what price to charge. When they choose a price, and 'guess' the wrong amount of production to match, you see the massive incentive programs to move vehicles off sales lots.
I would guess that about half of American manufacturers' quality concerns come from legitimate quality problems in the 80s thorugh the mid-90s, and the other half comes from the implied quality increase that people created when the auto pact restricted the supply of japanese vehicles, lead to a preponderence of higher end models being shipped to maximize benefit under a quota, lead to somewhat elevated retail prices, and highly elevated resale prices.
For example, GMs midsize/fullsize (whatever) malibus and related vehicles consistently rank as some of teh best designed and built vehicles in their class. But they don't hold resale value like an Accord or Camry, because the perception doesn't match the reality. On the other hand, until the most recent refresh, the Cavalier and Sunfire had a well-deserved reputation for being crap (I've heard only good things about them since the new models in about 2002).
The point is that the loss of value and the retail price have nothing to do with 'costs' and nothing to do with 'markup'. They are a function of a market that operates on information, some of which is accurate, and some of which is not. General Motors can try to improve its reputation, and one way to do that is to avoid dumping vehicles; when a new cavlier or sunfire sold for $10k (canadian) for a couple of years, compared to a minimum of $14k for any competing vehicle, this did nothing to improve perceptions of quality; essentially GM chose to sell volume, rather than attempt to sell quality. But costs have no effect on price; they simply determine if a company can stay in business, given the price available for their product at any given production level.
Of course consumers have to make their choices based on the reality that everyone else holds as well as their own, if they are to maximize benefit:
I would have no preference for an Accord over a Malibu, based on my perception of quality, butI would have to consider the total cost of owning the two vehicles, and the reality of the used car market might make me choose the Honda, if I were buying new. The opposite occurs buying used; japanese cars are well made, but market perception of how well made they are outstrips my perception of the real difference; thus I can maximize my benefit by purchsing what I consider an 'undervalued' domestic car in the used market.
GM made a big mistake in the last 4-5 years with 0% financing and other gimmicks to get people to buy cars. This caused the used market to be flooded with GM's, resale values to plummet and a lot of people to take on upside down loans to buy a new car.
I say again: Prius demand GREATLY exceeds supply.
Originally posted by: alent1234
GM made a big mistake in the last 4-5 years with 0% financing and other gimmicks to get people to buy cars. This caused the used market to be flooded with GM's, resale values to plummet and a lot of people to take on upside down loans to buy a new car. Like all houses of cards it soon fell. People can only buy new cars every so often. Especially when the resale values are worse than computers
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: judasmachine
I'd buy a GM if they weren't ugly and they were at least Hybrids.
Huh??? According to the P&N experts in here there is no demand, Zero, Nada for Hybrids.
Why would you want to get something no one wants???
I say again: Prius demand GREATLY exceeds supply.
People are waiting WEEKS to MONTHS to get their hands on this "no demand" car.
Jason
I *think* he was being sarcastic
I thought so too, but it's hard to tell with Dave, so I figured I'd hedge my bets