|
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:13:15 GMT, William H. Bowen
<wh_bowen@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >><mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >>>Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including >>>healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that >>>national health coverage will be free, do you? >> >>No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone >>has it. > > . . . remainder of the posting snipped fro brevity > >Gordon, > > The reasons that health care costs more in the USA boils down to 3 >points: > >1) The citizens of the US subsidize the health care of the rest of the >world. How? Easy - the R&D costs in drugs, medical appliances and >other medical devices invented and perfected here that are used >throughout the rest of the world. You need look no further than Canada >to see the results - the Canadian gov. demands that the drug companies >sell their drugs at the price the Canadian gov. demands they be sold >at, regardless of the real costs, or Canadian law allows the Canadian >gov. to expropraite the patent (which in the US would be a crime >called extortion). So the drug companies transfer their costs back to >the citizens of the USA. Really? The Canadian government can command a US company to sell its products in Canada and then set the price? And all the other countries can do this also? How does that work? Don't be naive. Big Pharma makes a good profit selling to those other countries. They are making a killing in the US. Don't believe the big sob stories about their research and FDA approval costs and the great new drugs they give us. While there are constant improvements in drugs, most new drugs launched on the market are little or no better than the old ones and a new drug always carries an uncertain risk. And a lot of the research is marketing driven. > >2) The cost of our INSANE tort legal system. I don't think I need to >elaborate on this - folks far more learened that I am on the law have >already sliced that salami. > >3) The stubborness of a lot of folks in the US (and at times I have to >include myself in this group) that do not pay enough attention to >preventative care. It nearly always costs more to fix something wrong >with a human if it is let go than if it is nipped while small. > >I see the same thing every day with cars too. One of the oil filter >companies had a whole ad campaign built around that - the tag line of >the ad series was "pay me now or pay me BIG later". > >Regards, > Bill Bowen > Sacramento, CA |
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:13:15 GMT, William H. Bowen
<wh_bowen@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >><mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >>>Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including >>>healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that >>>national health coverage will be free, do you? >> >>No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone >>has it. > > . . . remainder of the posting snipped fro brevity > >Gordon, > > The reasons that health care costs more in the USA boils down to 3 >points: > >1) The citizens of the US subsidize the health care of the rest of the >world. How? Easy - the R&D costs in drugs, medical appliances and >other medical devices invented and perfected here that are used >throughout the rest of the world. You need look no further than Canada >to see the results - the Canadian gov. demands that the drug companies >sell their drugs at the price the Canadian gov. demands they be sold >at, regardless of the real costs, or Canadian law allows the Canadian >gov. to expropraite the patent (which in the US would be a crime >called extortion). So the drug companies transfer their costs back to >the citizens of the USA. Really? The Canadian government can command a US company to sell its products in Canada and then set the price? And all the other countries can do this also? How does that work? Don't be naive. Big Pharma makes a good profit selling to those other countries. They are making a killing in the US. Don't believe the big sob stories about their research and FDA approval costs and the great new drugs they give us. While there are constant improvements in drugs, most new drugs launched on the market are little or no better than the old ones and a new drug always carries an uncertain risk. And a lot of the research is marketing driven. > >2) The cost of our INSANE tort legal system. I don't think I need to >elaborate on this - folks far more learened that I am on the law have >already sliced that salami. > >3) The stubborness of a lot of folks in the US (and at times I have to >include myself in this group) that do not pay enough attention to >preventative care. It nearly always costs more to fix something wrong >with a human if it is let go than if it is nipped while small. > >I see the same thing every day with cars too. One of the oil filter >companies had a whole ad campaign built around that - the tag line of >the ad series was "pay me now or pay me BIG later". > >Regards, > Bill Bowen > Sacramento, CA |
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:13:15 GMT, William H. Bowen
<wh_bowen@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >><mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >>>Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including >>>healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that >>>national health coverage will be free, do you? >> >>No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone >>has it. > > . . . remainder of the posting snipped fro brevity > >Gordon, > > The reasons that health care costs more in the USA boils down to 3 >points: > >1) The citizens of the US subsidize the health care of the rest of the >world. How? Easy - the R&D costs in drugs, medical appliances and >other medical devices invented and perfected here that are used >throughout the rest of the world. You need look no further than Canada >to see the results - the Canadian gov. demands that the drug companies >sell their drugs at the price the Canadian gov. demands they be sold >at, regardless of the real costs, or Canadian law allows the Canadian >gov. to expropraite the patent (which in the US would be a crime >called extortion). So the drug companies transfer their costs back to >the citizens of the USA. Really? The Canadian government can command a US company to sell its products in Canada and then set the price? And all the other countries can do this also? How does that work? Don't be naive. Big Pharma makes a good profit selling to those other countries. They are making a killing in the US. Don't believe the big sob stories about their research and FDA approval costs and the great new drugs they give us. While there are constant improvements in drugs, most new drugs launched on the market are little or no better than the old ones and a new drug always carries an uncertain risk. And a lot of the research is marketing driven. > >2) The cost of our INSANE tort legal system. I don't think I need to >elaborate on this - folks far more learened that I am on the law have >already sliced that salami. > >3) The stubborness of a lot of folks in the US (and at times I have to >include myself in this group) that do not pay enough attention to >preventative care. It nearly always costs more to fix something wrong >with a human if it is let go than if it is nipped while small. > >I see the same thing every day with cars too. One of the oil filter >companies had a whole ad campaign built around that - the tag line of >the ad series was "pay me now or pay me BIG later". > >Regards, > Bill Bowen > Sacramento, CA |
Re: GM still outsells Honda in 2006
Ya right LOL
mike hunt "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QxJAg.10$l95.1@trnddc08... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> Duh to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan: "There you go again," saying >> things with seeming authority yet getting the facts wrong. Denso GLOBAL >> is the Japanese sales company that owns Denso. Japanese assemblers in >> the US buy from Denso GLOBAL because of Japanese tax laws that earn >> credit for Japanese corporations that buy form other Japanese >> corporations. Japan offers tax credits for exports and on capital >> returned to Japan . ;) >> >> >> mike hunt >> > > Any backup for your assertions there Mikey? I'm suspect that we will > once again hear about how you don't do research for other people. > > There is no such company as "Denso Global" and I would love to see > independent information backing your tax law claims. > > Go ahead, just this once prove me wrong. > > John > |
Re: GM still outsells Honda in 2006
Ya right LOL
mike hunt "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QxJAg.10$l95.1@trnddc08... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> Duh to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan: "There you go again," saying >> things with seeming authority yet getting the facts wrong. Denso GLOBAL >> is the Japanese sales company that owns Denso. Japanese assemblers in >> the US buy from Denso GLOBAL because of Japanese tax laws that earn >> credit for Japanese corporations that buy form other Japanese >> corporations. Japan offers tax credits for exports and on capital >> returned to Japan . ;) >> >> >> mike hunt >> > > Any backup for your assertions there Mikey? I'm suspect that we will > once again hear about how you don't do research for other people. > > There is no such company as "Denso Global" and I would love to see > independent information backing your tax law claims. > > Go ahead, just this once prove me wrong. > > John > |
Re: GM still outsells Honda in 2006
Ya right LOL
mike hunt "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QxJAg.10$l95.1@trnddc08... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> Duh to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan: "There you go again," saying >> things with seeming authority yet getting the facts wrong. Denso GLOBAL >> is the Japanese sales company that owns Denso. Japanese assemblers in >> the US buy from Denso GLOBAL because of Japanese tax laws that earn >> credit for Japanese corporations that buy form other Japanese >> corporations. Japan offers tax credits for exports and on capital >> returned to Japan . ;) >> >> >> mike hunt >> > > Any backup for your assertions there Mikey? I'm suspect that we will > once again hear about how you don't do research for other people. > > There is no such company as "Denso Global" and I would love to see > independent information backing your tax law claims. > > Go ahead, just this once prove me wrong. > > John > |
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:33:58 GMT, " dbu," <howard@dynoadorky.com>
wrote: >In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>, > Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including >> >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that >> >national health coverage will be free, do you? >> >> No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone >> has it. > > >I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains >how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay >BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this >monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets >batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate >details. Scary. A lot of work needed, no doubt. Fortunately there are lots of working models to learn from. If you want to be scared, check out the number of personal bankruptcies which are caused by medical expenses and the stories behind them. |
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:33:58 GMT, " dbu," <howard@dynoadorky.com>
wrote: >In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>, > Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including >> >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that >> >national health coverage will be free, do you? >> >> No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone >> has it. > > >I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains >how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay >BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this >monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets >batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate >details. Scary. A lot of work needed, no doubt. Fortunately there are lots of working models to learn from. If you want to be scared, check out the number of personal bankruptcies which are caused by medical expenses and the stories behind them. |
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:33:58 GMT, " dbu," <howard@dynoadorky.com>
wrote: >In article <91e5d290gr6csm2gqvme0qro77dnif0imj@4ax.com>, > Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:08:20 -0400, "Mike Hunter" >> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> >> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including >> >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that >> >national health coverage will be free, do you? >> >> No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone >> has it. > > >I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains >how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay >BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this >monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets >batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate >details. Scary. A lot of work needed, no doubt. Fortunately there are lots of working models to learn from. If you want to be scared, check out the number of personal bankruptcies which are caused by medical expenses and the stories behind them. |
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
Everyone who want to lower health care cost in the US should write to their
Senators and ask them to vote to stop debate, on pending tort reform legislation so it can come up before the Senate for a vote, and you will have more Doctors and Nurses. I have a personal friend, a well known heart surgeon who no longer practices because of Mal Practice Insurance costs. mike hunt "grappletech" <noone@removenowhere.biz> wrote in message news:1154716333_15565@sp6iad.superfeed.net... > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in > news:OaOcnVJcOYmtxU7ZUSdV9g@ptd.net: > >> Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The >> difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what >> you buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay >> and take if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must >> go, and when, to receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER >> run anything efficiently that you know of? Look at Medicare. When >> presented it was estimated to cost a certain amount annually in ten >> years. Those that were opposed to the government getting into >> healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they were wrong. It >> cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two hours pay >> to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a days >> wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for >> seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of >> drugs to the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen >> if everyone, including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and >> healthcare? >> >> >> mike hunt >> > > > Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up > the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more > MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges > and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up, > and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots > open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those > getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are > many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there > are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing > professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to > the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1. > There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for > nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't > enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the > hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We > need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more > nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury > awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the > lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get > nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping > awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of > these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a > physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the > healthcare industry. |
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
Everyone who want to lower health care cost in the US should write to their
Senators and ask them to vote to stop debate, on pending tort reform legislation so it can come up before the Senate for a vote, and you will have more Doctors and Nurses. I have a personal friend, a well known heart surgeon who no longer practices because of Mal Practice Insurance costs. mike hunt "grappletech" <noone@removenowhere.biz> wrote in message news:1154716333_15565@sp6iad.superfeed.net... > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in > news:OaOcnVJcOYmtxU7ZUSdV9g@ptd.net: > >> Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The >> difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what >> you buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay >> and take if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must >> go, and when, to receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER >> run anything efficiently that you know of? Look at Medicare. When >> presented it was estimated to cost a certain amount annually in ten >> years. Those that were opposed to the government getting into >> healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they were wrong. It >> cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two hours pay >> to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a days >> wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for >> seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of >> drugs to the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen >> if everyone, including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and >> healthcare? >> >> >> mike hunt >> > > > Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up > the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more > MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges > and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up, > and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots > open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those > getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are > many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there > are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing > professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to > the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1. > There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for > nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't > enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the > hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We > need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more > nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury > awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the > lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get > nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping > awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of > these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a > physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the > healthcare industry. |
Re: Who can afford 'free' medical care?
Everyone who want to lower health care cost in the US should write to their
Senators and ask them to vote to stop debate, on pending tort reform legislation so it can come up before the Senate for a vote, and you will have more Doctors and Nurses. I have a personal friend, a well known heart surgeon who no longer practices because of Mal Practice Insurance costs. mike hunt "grappletech" <noone@removenowhere.biz> wrote in message news:1154716333_15565@sp6iad.superfeed.net... > "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in > news:OaOcnVJcOYmtxU7ZUSdV9g@ptd.net: > >> Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The >> difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what >> you buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay >> and take if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must >> go, and when, to receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER >> run anything efficiently that you know of? Look at Medicare. When >> presented it was estimated to cost a certain amount annually in ten >> years. Those that were opposed to the government getting into >> healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they were wrong. It >> cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two hours pay >> to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a days >> wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for >> seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of >> drugs to the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen >> if everyone, including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and >> healthcare? >> >> >> mike hunt >> > > > Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up > the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more > MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges > and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up, > and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots > open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those > getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are > many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there > are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing > professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to > the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1. > There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for > nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't > enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the > hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We > need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more > nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury > awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the > lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get > nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping > awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of > these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a > physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the > healthcare industry. |
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
That statement is too stupid to deserve a reply.
mike hunt "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uiJAg.7$l95.6@trnddc08... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had >> to spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American wanted. At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required emission and crash improvements, sucking up more millions of dollars of capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements. By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency, nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner. .. > Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management. > > You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking in > profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and > workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future. > > You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for > two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto > makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I > suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come up > with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the hole > left by a ground squirrel! > > You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist > reminds me of you :). > > > John > > > |
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
That statement is too stupid to deserve a reply.
mike hunt "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uiJAg.7$l95.6@trnddc08... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had >> to spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American wanted. At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required emission and crash improvements, sucking up more millions of dollars of capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements. By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency, nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner. .. > Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management. > > You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking in > profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and > workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future. > > You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for > two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto > makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I > suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come up > with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the hole > left by a ground squirrel! > > You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist > reminds me of you :). > > > John > > > |
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
That statement is too stupid to deserve a reply.
mike hunt "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uiJAg.7$l95.6@trnddc08... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had >> to spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American wanted. At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required emission and crash improvements, sucking up more millions of dollars of capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements. By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency, nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner. .. > Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management. > > You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking in > profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and > workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future. > > You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for > two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto > makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I > suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come up > with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the hole > left by a ground squirrel! > > You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist > reminds me of you :). > > > John > > > |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands