R.I.P. General Motors (1931-2006)

Why are you so fixatated on the US market, top poster? The US is not
the only country in the world. In the US, there's a strong home-team
advantage and momentum, and they are STILL losing market share.
Pathetic.

Dumbshit. If that were true, their market share would not be growing,
while GM and Ford fall.

 

Dizzy, go climb into your ricer and drive to foreign car group.
plonk

 

Not to mention Toyota MAY be losing money on each Prius. And if the
g'mint gives buyers tax breaks - it will erode the resale value of all
previously purchased Pri-i.

Carl

 

Mike,
Please post the statistics related to car sales in Japan, England or
France. It's my guess that Honda and Toyota sold more cars in those
countries than GM.
Jason

 

True, but the nuclear power plants' electricity is already taken up powering
computers, lights, A/C, etc.

Besides, nuclear power is not renewable.

Jeff

 

You stated in an earlier post that you don't keep any vehicle past the
warranty period. If that was true, what kind of maitainence are you actually
paying for that costs that much more ?

 

What humanitarians they must be, to give away a Prius for less than the cost
to manufacture and warranty.

If that's happening, the effect is small, to say the least. A used 2005
Prius is worth pretty close to the original list price.



*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

 

Worldcom...
Enron...
Was it Continental or SeaFirst that got taken down in the energy lending
rush of the early '80's?
Too many airlines to remember...

Now, apologize to Dizzy and play nice.



*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

 

Nice snip. I'll include the entire post so you may improve your reading
comprehension. You're not related to Mike Hunter by chance, are you ? If you
compare it your way *everyone* is distant from GM. Why not say GM is first
and everyone else is a distant 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc....... The figures show
Chrysler and Toyota almost tied.

I think you had some problems with your math.

GM = 26.8 %

Ford = 17.9 %

Chrysler= 14 %

Toyota = 13.7 %

Honda = 8.9 %

You stated above " Toyota and Honda a distant fourth and fifth. " Honda
may be a distant fifth but Toyota is almost even with Chrysler, unless you
consider 3 tenths of one percent * distant*.

 

(Sigvaldi Eggertsson) sigvaldATbinetDOTis from Reykjavik, Iceland
wrote:

Nor is it his fault that you are follically challenged, suffering from
penis envy and forced to learn English or go hungry! ;-) Your native
tongue is hardly the language of international commerce, is it?

Nor am I an expert on the Christmas grouse shortage in Iceland although
I am advised that you "always thought the bird was called "Ptarmigan"
not Grouse."

"What everyone DOES understand is what you mean when you say Eastern
and Western Europe, noting that it no longer assumes East is
impoverished. Some people are sensitive about the above labels though."

Nor is it anyone's fault that according to the bureau of statistics
(www.hagstofa.is) as of
1st dec. 2004, Iceland had 5775 members of the Roman Catholic church.


It really is a small world, isn't it Mr. Eggertsson? There's no reason
for you to be so defensive about being from a small country. Get over
it. And your more urgent concerns could be partially rectified with a
hair implant and penile transplant from your pet cat. ;-)

 

Braniff, Montgomery-Ward, soon Winchester (at one time they had about as
many stores as Radio Shack!) etc. But, there are at least 2 precedents
for saving vehicle manufacturers - Chrysler and harley-davidson. So I
wouldn't discount the possibility that the US taxpayer ends up bailing
out GM in some fashion.

Carl

 

Well, the idea is, why buy used if a new one comes with a huge tax
credit. Of course, they could (and should) extend that same or similar
percentage credit to purchasers of used Pri-i. But will they? this is
the g'mint we're talking about! lol!

I'll be more excited about hybrids when I can 'top off' the traction
batts in the garage.

Carl

 

If imports are better or not is certainly a matter of opinion. Your
experience indicates to you that domestic cars are superior. Mine
doesn't. We disagree.

On your point about my children..... If you believe that buying
American cars that are inferior (if you believed that) would help
protect your children's jobs, I think you'd be mistaken. It would
only make the companies that you were falsely supporting believe
that they actually made stuff worth buying. That's unsupportable in
the long term.

 

Hey Gosinn, thanks for the translation. Man, if 3,845 cars represent
15% of all Swedish Sales in a month, that means only 25,633 cars were
sold in a month! Any major North American city sells more than that
many cars in a month!

And if 3,845 ecocars represent a 540% increase year-over-year for
March, that means that only 712 were sold in the prior March. It's
damned near time that the Swedish took environmental concerns more
seriously! They should be ashamed! :-Þ

 

That's a bit harsh. Lying indicates that I know what I'm saying is
false but I say it anyway. We may disagree, but that doesn't make
what I'm saying a lie. I stated my opinion. It may be wrong, but
it's not a lie.

That's not how a free economy works. How much you think you NEED
has no bearing on how much you're paid. It may not be nice, but
that's the way it works.

So, it's your contention that getting paid what your worth is a
silly idea that we need to discard?

No, it's actually a true story that I'm intimately aware of.

Nobody took a pay cut -- but nobody got raises for the period of the
story.

There are none to end.

None take limos.

Light industrial, unskilled, clean-room environment. Just like the
employees at the company we're talking about.

(In NYC, we have registered nurses

I'm sorry to hear that. Nothing like that happened ere.

Only because they've been forced to. It's blatantly obvious that it
was the only thing they could do.

Fairly represented is a relative term. If they'd been fairly
represented all along, they'd not have to make as many concessions now.

We disagree that it's a fabrication.

I think the government shouldn't have bailed them out.

Actually, I didn't say that. I said there was plenty of blame to go
around but the unions had the largest piece of the blame pie now.

 

Gee Mike, you really are thick, aren't you? I thought you were merely
feigning naievety. Here in North America, everyone strives to be 1st in
everything we do. Whether it be hockey, baseball, soccer, basketball,
auto racing and yes, even auto sales. If we happen not to place first,
we then compare our position to the 1st place team. Not the 3rd! But
hey, maybe you use different parameters when you consistently place 4th
or 5th. Maybe then you find solace in comparing yourself to 3rd place!

To put it another way that you might understand Mike, "GM is first
and everyone else is a distant 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc....... ". *guffaw*
*chuckle* *snort*

 

Never, but Goldwater was RIGHT. And Johnson was WRONG.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

No they didn't, and how would you know? Is that in American or Canadian
dollars? <g>

Charles of Schaumburg.

 

I can assure you from first hand experience that Toyota does not sell
vehicles at a loss. Besides, Toyota would run afoul of laws against dumping
if they were to sell vehicles at a loss.

 

SS is funded by payroll taxes. It is often called a pay-as-you-go
system where current revenue is used to pay benefits to those already
retired. The system is currently running a surplus. At some point it
will run a deficit and will have to tap into the funds which were set
aside when the system was running a surplus. Those funds, which the
right-wing scare mongers describe as "a file cabinet full of IOUs" are
in fact invested in US Treasury Bonds backed by the full faith and
credit of the US Government. As long as the Government is solvent, SS
funds are safe.

Current projections show the system exhausting the surplus in the year
2042. (It is worth noting that even after the surplus is exhausted, SS
could still meet roughly 75% of its obligations through current
revenue.) The 2042 projection assumes a very low rate of growth in
the GDP because Congress mandated the use of that number. Apply a
more realistic assumption and the system is solvent to infinity. That
is why every time there is a new projection, the crises date moves
farther into the future.

The real problem is what happens when SS starts to cash in their T
Bonds. The US Government will have to start paying out money that it
doesn't have. In fact, the US Government is in deep in red ink thanks
to tax cuts and extravagant budgets (not to mention off budget items
like the war in Iraq) in the Reagan/Bush years. If the US has to
refinance all that money, it may have to do so at higher interest
rates, especially if China decides it is holding enough US paper.

Now, what am I missing?