Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
#226
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:00:42 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>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.
>>
>
>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!
Nonsense, it will be Clinton's fault.
>
>You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
>reminds me of you .
>
>
>John
>
>
wrote:
>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.
>>
>
>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!
Nonsense, it will be Clinton's fault.
>
>You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
>reminds me of you .
>
>
>John
>
>
#227
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:00:42 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>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.
>>
>
>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!
Nonsense, it will be Clinton's fault.
>
>You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
>reminds me of you .
>
>
>John
>
>
wrote:
>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.
>>
>
>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!
Nonsense, it will be Clinton's fault.
>
>You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
>reminds me of you .
>
>
>John
>
>
#228
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:00:42 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>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.
>>
>
>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!
Nonsense, it will be Clinton's fault.
>
>You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
>reminds me of you .
>
>
>John
>
>
wrote:
>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.
>>
>
>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!
Nonsense, it will be Clinton's fault.
>
>You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist
>reminds me of you .
>
>
>John
>
>
#229
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Hachiroku wrote:
>
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
> news:44D356C2.73316FCD@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
> >
> >
> > John Horner wrote:
> >>
> >> Hachiroku wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 +0000, John Horner wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
> >> >>
> >> >>1) Toyota
> >> >>2) Honda
> >> >>3) Hyundai
> >> >>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Make that:
> >> > 1) Toyota-GM
> >> > 2) Honda
> >> > 3) Ford
> >> >
> >>
> >> An interesting take. I can't see Toyota going all the way to the altar
> >> with GM though. What would Toyota get out of it? Also, Toyota has a
> >> long history of being an independent company in mind and action.
> >> Nissan, on the other hand, started out as a company which was always in
> >> bed with at least one foreign company and continues that pattern today.
> >>
> >> I can see the long-shot Nissan-Renault-GM deal happening as a much
> >> higher probability than an Toyota-GM tie up.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> >
> >
> > GM is a poor candidate for takeover due to it's outrageous union/pension
> > commitments. I see the company being broken up and assets sold within
> > the next five years.
> >
> > JT
>
> You been listening to Michael Savage again!!!!
>
> I don't very often, but last night he was ranting about Foreigners killing
> the US car industry, and then about applying ridiculous tarrifs to imported
> cars.
>
> Then, he says the Big 3 don't listen to the Union leaders,
>
> THEN he says the car companies need to back the Unions down!!!
>
> Well, which is it?!?!?!?
Since I never listen to talk radio, I can only venture my view on why
Detroit is doing so poorly.
1. It isn't the foreign competitors killing the US auto industry. The
US auto industry is killing the US auto industry.
2. Hell, I think that the big 3 have slept with the union leaders. How
else did they negotiate wages that even an engineer would be envious of?
3. The time for backing the unions down should have been done beginning
inn the 1950's. Compensation should reflect services rendered.
JT
#230
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Hachiroku wrote:
>
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
> news:44D356C2.73316FCD@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
> >
> >
> > John Horner wrote:
> >>
> >> Hachiroku wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 +0000, John Horner wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
> >> >>
> >> >>1) Toyota
> >> >>2) Honda
> >> >>3) Hyundai
> >> >>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Make that:
> >> > 1) Toyota-GM
> >> > 2) Honda
> >> > 3) Ford
> >> >
> >>
> >> An interesting take. I can't see Toyota going all the way to the altar
> >> with GM though. What would Toyota get out of it? Also, Toyota has a
> >> long history of being an independent company in mind and action.
> >> Nissan, on the other hand, started out as a company which was always in
> >> bed with at least one foreign company and continues that pattern today.
> >>
> >> I can see the long-shot Nissan-Renault-GM deal happening as a much
> >> higher probability than an Toyota-GM tie up.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> >
> >
> > GM is a poor candidate for takeover due to it's outrageous union/pension
> > commitments. I see the company being broken up and assets sold within
> > the next five years.
> >
> > JT
>
> You been listening to Michael Savage again!!!!
>
> I don't very often, but last night he was ranting about Foreigners killing
> the US car industry, and then about applying ridiculous tarrifs to imported
> cars.
>
> Then, he says the Big 3 don't listen to the Union leaders,
>
> THEN he says the car companies need to back the Unions down!!!
>
> Well, which is it?!?!?!?
Since I never listen to talk radio, I can only venture my view on why
Detroit is doing so poorly.
1. It isn't the foreign competitors killing the US auto industry. The
US auto industry is killing the US auto industry.
2. Hell, I think that the big 3 have slept with the union leaders. How
else did they negotiate wages that even an engineer would be envious of?
3. The time for backing the unions down should have been done beginning
inn the 1950's. Compensation should reflect services rendered.
JT
#231
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Hachiroku wrote:
>
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
> news:44D356C2.73316FCD@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
> >
> >
> > John Horner wrote:
> >>
> >> Hachiroku wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:21:30 +0000, John Horner wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
> >> >>
> >> >>1) Toyota
> >> >>2) Honda
> >> >>3) Hyundai
> >> >>4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Make that:
> >> > 1) Toyota-GM
> >> > 2) Honda
> >> > 3) Ford
> >> >
> >>
> >> An interesting take. I can't see Toyota going all the way to the altar
> >> with GM though. What would Toyota get out of it? Also, Toyota has a
> >> long history of being an independent company in mind and action.
> >> Nissan, on the other hand, started out as a company which was always in
> >> bed with at least one foreign company and continues that pattern today.
> >>
> >> I can see the long-shot Nissan-Renault-GM deal happening as a much
> >> higher probability than an Toyota-GM tie up.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> >
> >
> > GM is a poor candidate for takeover due to it's outrageous union/pension
> > commitments. I see the company being broken up and assets sold within
> > the next five years.
> >
> > JT
>
> You been listening to Michael Savage again!!!!
>
> I don't very often, but last night he was ranting about Foreigners killing
> the US car industry, and then about applying ridiculous tarrifs to imported
> cars.
>
> Then, he says the Big 3 don't listen to the Union leaders,
>
> THEN he says the car companies need to back the Unions down!!!
>
> Well, which is it?!?!?!?
Since I never listen to talk radio, I can only venture my view on why
Detroit is doing so poorly.
1. It isn't the foreign competitors killing the US auto industry. The
US auto industry is killing the US auto industry.
2. Hell, I think that the big 3 have slept with the union leaders. How
else did they negotiate wages that even an engineer would be envious of?
3. The time for backing the unions down should have been done beginning
inn the 1950's. Compensation should reflect services rendered.
JT
#232
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:03:29 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess we would be better off if the government gave us all free medical
>care, free drugs. Why stop there? What about giving us a free insured car
>to go to the doctor, as well as buying the gas to run it. How about a free
>cell phone to call 911 if needed? How about three months paid medical
>leave for us and our families when somebody gets sick? How about maid
>service when we can't clean the house when we get sick. How about paying
>somebody do to our grocery shopping? How about a minimum wage of $25 a
>hour, and a 30 hour week so we don't have to work hard to get the things we
>'need?' How about a displaced worker payment equal to our take home pay,
>when all of our jobs go off shore because of all the imports we buy? How
>about a free college education like in Russia, so we can go to China to
>design the Toyotas they will soon build there for the American market? Hell
>we can just raise the death tax to 95% and raise tax rates for the rich to
>90% again, the rate in pre President Kennedy days, at least till the rich
>start moving out of the county, like they are doing in France
As I recall, the economy was doing pretty well back in those Kennedy
days.
The rich can leave as long as they pay the 95% exit tax that will fund
our nationalized health care. Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
And why shouldn't we raise the lazy bum rich kids windfall tax to 95%
(of the estate over $1 million)? Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
I love how you snip the bottom half of my post and then jump back up
and top post your response. Must have been something there that
really bothered you.
>
>
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ese7d2d58nl2paq0dorukf3gsier90karl@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:33:25 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Costs less? You have to be kidding, right?
>>>
>>>mike hunt
>>
>> 1. The US is virtually(?) the only industrialized nation that does not
>> have universal nationalized health care (and by far the richest and most
>> productive because if it)
>
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess we would be better off if the government gave us all free medical
>care, free drugs. Why stop there? What about giving us a free insured car
>to go to the doctor, as well as buying the gas to run it. How about a free
>cell phone to call 911 if needed? How about three months paid medical
>leave for us and our families when somebody gets sick? How about maid
>service when we can't clean the house when we get sick. How about paying
>somebody do to our grocery shopping? How about a minimum wage of $25 a
>hour, and a 30 hour week so we don't have to work hard to get the things we
>'need?' How about a displaced worker payment equal to our take home pay,
>when all of our jobs go off shore because of all the imports we buy? How
>about a free college education like in Russia, so we can go to China to
>design the Toyotas they will soon build there for the American market? Hell
>we can just raise the death tax to 95% and raise tax rates for the rich to
>90% again, the rate in pre President Kennedy days, at least till the rich
>start moving out of the county, like they are doing in France
As I recall, the economy was doing pretty well back in those Kennedy
days.
The rich can leave as long as they pay the 95% exit tax that will fund
our nationalized health care. Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
And why shouldn't we raise the lazy bum rich kids windfall tax to 95%
(of the estate over $1 million)? Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
I love how you snip the bottom half of my post and then jump back up
and top post your response. Must have been something there that
really bothered you.
>
>
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ese7d2d58nl2paq0dorukf3gsier90karl@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:33:25 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Costs less? You have to be kidding, right?
>>>
>>>mike hunt
>>
>> 1. The US is virtually(?) the only industrialized nation that does not
>> have universal nationalized health care (and by far the richest and most
>> productive because if it)
>
#233
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:03:29 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess we would be better off if the government gave us all free medical
>care, free drugs. Why stop there? What about giving us a free insured car
>to go to the doctor, as well as buying the gas to run it. How about a free
>cell phone to call 911 if needed? How about three months paid medical
>leave for us and our families when somebody gets sick? How about maid
>service when we can't clean the house when we get sick. How about paying
>somebody do to our grocery shopping? How about a minimum wage of $25 a
>hour, and a 30 hour week so we don't have to work hard to get the things we
>'need?' How about a displaced worker payment equal to our take home pay,
>when all of our jobs go off shore because of all the imports we buy? How
>about a free college education like in Russia, so we can go to China to
>design the Toyotas they will soon build there for the American market? Hell
>we can just raise the death tax to 95% and raise tax rates for the rich to
>90% again, the rate in pre President Kennedy days, at least till the rich
>start moving out of the county, like they are doing in France
As I recall, the economy was doing pretty well back in those Kennedy
days.
The rich can leave as long as they pay the 95% exit tax that will fund
our nationalized health care. Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
And why shouldn't we raise the lazy bum rich kids windfall tax to 95%
(of the estate over $1 million)? Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
I love how you snip the bottom half of my post and then jump back up
and top post your response. Must have been something there that
really bothered you.
>
>
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ese7d2d58nl2paq0dorukf3gsier90karl@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:33:25 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Costs less? You have to be kidding, right?
>>>
>>>mike hunt
>>
>> 1. The US is virtually(?) the only industrialized nation that does not
>> have universal nationalized health care (and by far the richest and most
>> productive because if it)
>
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess we would be better off if the government gave us all free medical
>care, free drugs. Why stop there? What about giving us a free insured car
>to go to the doctor, as well as buying the gas to run it. How about a free
>cell phone to call 911 if needed? How about three months paid medical
>leave for us and our families when somebody gets sick? How about maid
>service when we can't clean the house when we get sick. How about paying
>somebody do to our grocery shopping? How about a minimum wage of $25 a
>hour, and a 30 hour week so we don't have to work hard to get the things we
>'need?' How about a displaced worker payment equal to our take home pay,
>when all of our jobs go off shore because of all the imports we buy? How
>about a free college education like in Russia, so we can go to China to
>design the Toyotas they will soon build there for the American market? Hell
>we can just raise the death tax to 95% and raise tax rates for the rich to
>90% again, the rate in pre President Kennedy days, at least till the rich
>start moving out of the county, like they are doing in France
As I recall, the economy was doing pretty well back in those Kennedy
days.
The rich can leave as long as they pay the 95% exit tax that will fund
our nationalized health care. Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
And why shouldn't we raise the lazy bum rich kids windfall tax to 95%
(of the estate over $1 million)? Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
I love how you snip the bottom half of my post and then jump back up
and top post your response. Must have been something there that
really bothered you.
>
>
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ese7d2d58nl2paq0dorukf3gsier90karl@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:33:25 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Costs less? You have to be kidding, right?
>>>
>>>mike hunt
>>
>> 1. The US is virtually(?) the only industrialized nation that does not
>> have universal nationalized health care (and by far the richest and most
>> productive because if it)
>
#234
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:03:29 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess we would be better off if the government gave us all free medical
>care, free drugs. Why stop there? What about giving us a free insured car
>to go to the doctor, as well as buying the gas to run it. How about a free
>cell phone to call 911 if needed? How about three months paid medical
>leave for us and our families when somebody gets sick? How about maid
>service when we can't clean the house when we get sick. How about paying
>somebody do to our grocery shopping? How about a minimum wage of $25 a
>hour, and a 30 hour week so we don't have to work hard to get the things we
>'need?' How about a displaced worker payment equal to our take home pay,
>when all of our jobs go off shore because of all the imports we buy? How
>about a free college education like in Russia, so we can go to China to
>design the Toyotas they will soon build there for the American market? Hell
>we can just raise the death tax to 95% and raise tax rates for the rich to
>90% again, the rate in pre President Kennedy days, at least till the rich
>start moving out of the county, like they are doing in France
As I recall, the economy was doing pretty well back in those Kennedy
days.
The rich can leave as long as they pay the 95% exit tax that will fund
our nationalized health care. Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
And why shouldn't we raise the lazy bum rich kids windfall tax to 95%
(of the estate over $1 million)? Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
I love how you snip the bottom half of my post and then jump back up
and top post your response. Must have been something there that
really bothered you.
>
>
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ese7d2d58nl2paq0dorukf3gsier90karl@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:33:25 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Costs less? You have to be kidding, right?
>>>
>>>mike hunt
>>
>> 1. The US is virtually(?) the only industrialized nation that does not
>> have universal nationalized health care (and by far the richest and most
>> productive because if it)
>
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess we would be better off if the government gave us all free medical
>care, free drugs. Why stop there? What about giving us a free insured car
>to go to the doctor, as well as buying the gas to run it. How about a free
>cell phone to call 911 if needed? How about three months paid medical
>leave for us and our families when somebody gets sick? How about maid
>service when we can't clean the house when we get sick. How about paying
>somebody do to our grocery shopping? How about a minimum wage of $25 a
>hour, and a 30 hour week so we don't have to work hard to get the things we
>'need?' How about a displaced worker payment equal to our take home pay,
>when all of our jobs go off shore because of all the imports we buy? How
>about a free college education like in Russia, so we can go to China to
>design the Toyotas they will soon build there for the American market? Hell
>we can just raise the death tax to 95% and raise tax rates for the rich to
>90% again, the rate in pre President Kennedy days, at least till the rich
>start moving out of the county, like they are doing in France
As I recall, the economy was doing pretty well back in those Kennedy
days.
The rich can leave as long as they pay the 95% exit tax that will fund
our nationalized health care. Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
And why shouldn't we raise the lazy bum rich kids windfall tax to 95%
(of the estate over $1 million)? Like Bill Gates told the graduates,
life isn't fair.
I love how you snip the bottom half of my post and then jump back up
and top post your response. Must have been something there that
really bothered you.
>
>
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ese7d2d58nl2paq0dorukf3gsier90karl@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:33:25 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Costs less? You have to be kidding, right?
>>>
>>>mike hunt
>>
>> 1. The US is virtually(?) the only industrialized nation that does not
>> have universal nationalized health care (and by far the richest and most
>> productive because if it)
>
#235
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> Well, not so much your economics as the underlying assumptions...the
> social Economics are usually taught as a re-skin of Marxist theology
> under the same sort of thinking as Keynes used.
>
> Which is that you might assume one variable does not affect the other.
> Example being: that you can adjust inflation rate by raising taxes, which
> supposedly reduces demand thus price for discretionary spending.
>
> Which is, short term true but long term false as the earner will then
> adjust price/wage for inflation so as to maintain the profit or standard
> of living.
>
> All the above is not learned through classroom lecture but best from
> watching and remembering the effects after.
I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and
compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe
figure is much much higher
In Europe people work much fewer hours, have longer vacations, have
better job security
The market economy is in effect in both cases but the European one has
a more humane touch and is actually working better
Look at the value of the dollar for one thing
The dollar compared to the pound is close to 1:2 now and it used to be
1:1 a few years back
The raltionship between the Dollar to Euro is also slipping dollar used
to be $ > Euro and is now $ < Euro
Europe is still working off the effects of the former east problems but
even with those problems the manhour in Europe gives higher
productivity than the manhour does in US
I am then talking about Europe as a whole
The former east part is still lagging way behind both but changing
quickly as time goes by and new generation of people grow up
The older generation living under centralised government that ended
roughly 16 years ago has really high unemployment rate and are used to
the central taking all initiative
When the new generation born after the fall of the Berlin wall is
coming of age things are changing a lot
The strange thing is that as Europe is changing away from centralised
government because of its failures than US is going more and more
towards centralised government
It is happening so gradually that everyman is hardly noticing it
More and more big brother tendencies is deteriorating the productivity
of the manhour in the US system
The unions in many big cos in US are much more a hindrance for
increased productivity than the general system in effect in Europe
#236
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> Well, not so much your economics as the underlying assumptions...the
> social Economics are usually taught as a re-skin of Marxist theology
> under the same sort of thinking as Keynes used.
>
> Which is that you might assume one variable does not affect the other.
> Example being: that you can adjust inflation rate by raising taxes, which
> supposedly reduces demand thus price for discretionary spending.
>
> Which is, short term true but long term false as the earner will then
> adjust price/wage for inflation so as to maintain the profit or standard
> of living.
>
> All the above is not learned through classroom lecture but best from
> watching and remembering the effects after.
I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and
compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe
figure is much much higher
In Europe people work much fewer hours, have longer vacations, have
better job security
The market economy is in effect in both cases but the European one has
a more humane touch and is actually working better
Look at the value of the dollar for one thing
The dollar compared to the pound is close to 1:2 now and it used to be
1:1 a few years back
The raltionship between the Dollar to Euro is also slipping dollar used
to be $ > Euro and is now $ < Euro
Europe is still working off the effects of the former east problems but
even with those problems the manhour in Europe gives higher
productivity than the manhour does in US
I am then talking about Europe as a whole
The former east part is still lagging way behind both but changing
quickly as time goes by and new generation of people grow up
The older generation living under centralised government that ended
roughly 16 years ago has really high unemployment rate and are used to
the central taking all initiative
When the new generation born after the fall of the Berlin wall is
coming of age things are changing a lot
The strange thing is that as Europe is changing away from centralised
government because of its failures than US is going more and more
towards centralised government
It is happening so gradually that everyman is hardly noticing it
More and more big brother tendencies is deteriorating the productivity
of the manhour in the US system
The unions in many big cos in US are much more a hindrance for
increased productivity than the general system in effect in Europe
#237
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> Well, not so much your economics as the underlying assumptions...the
> social Economics are usually taught as a re-skin of Marxist theology
> under the same sort of thinking as Keynes used.
>
> Which is that you might assume one variable does not affect the other.
> Example being: that you can adjust inflation rate by raising taxes, which
> supposedly reduces demand thus price for discretionary spending.
>
> Which is, short term true but long term false as the earner will then
> adjust price/wage for inflation so as to maintain the profit or standard
> of living.
>
> All the above is not learned through classroom lecture but best from
> watching and remembering the effects after.
I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and
compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe
figure is much much higher
In Europe people work much fewer hours, have longer vacations, have
better job security
The market economy is in effect in both cases but the European one has
a more humane touch and is actually working better
Look at the value of the dollar for one thing
The dollar compared to the pound is close to 1:2 now and it used to be
1:1 a few years back
The raltionship between the Dollar to Euro is also slipping dollar used
to be $ > Euro and is now $ < Euro
Europe is still working off the effects of the former east problems but
even with those problems the manhour in Europe gives higher
productivity than the manhour does in US
I am then talking about Europe as a whole
The former east part is still lagging way behind both but changing
quickly as time goes by and new generation of people grow up
The older generation living under centralised government that ended
roughly 16 years ago has really high unemployment rate and are used to
the central taking all initiative
When the new generation born after the fall of the Berlin wall is
coming of age things are changing a lot
The strange thing is that as Europe is changing away from centralised
government because of its failures than US is going more and more
towards centralised government
It is happening so gradually that everyman is hardly noticing it
More and more big brother tendencies is deteriorating the productivity
of the manhour in the US system
The unions in many big cos in US are much more a hindrance for
increased productivity than the general system in effect in Europe
#238
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
JohnR66 wrote:
> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:329Ag.14787$PO.7806@dukeread03...
>> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:uH8Ag.3649$8v.1563@trnddc05...
>>> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>>>
>>> 1) Toyota
>>> 2) Honda
>>> 3) Hyundai
>>> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
>>
>>
>> Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece
>> of compared to anything Japaneese or American.
>>
> Hundai is a heck of a success story. Near death after selling a bunch of
> crappy cars, they turned things completely around in recent years.
>
> Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback.
>
> IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. All
> the teens want Hondas and Toyotas and probably continue buying them as they
> age. I've worked for the same emplyer for 17 years and know many people
> well. If they're not driving a Ford or GM truck, then it is a Toyota, Honda
> or Mazda. Many of the US passenger cars are older models. One minor trend is
> a couple of new Ford Fusions out in the lot.
>
> I find myself wanting a Toyota Yaris liftback. I find myself needing
> something with better mileage for daily driving (I need to keep the truck
> for hauling for my side business). Once I again, the American Automakers are
> asleep at the wheel. They don't produce anything that compares to the
> Yaris/Fit/Scion. Yes GM has the Aveo, but what's with the crappy fuel
> mileage? I looked at the Focus, but the design looks tired and boring after
> nearly 7 years.
>
> Next there's the Ranger compact truck. A decent, reliable vehicle that
> actually has some Japanese hardware in it, but Ford won't redesign years
> after it should have been and the "middle" engine is the anemic 3.0L V6 that
> gets SUV like gas milege and has less HP than many 4 bangers (like GMs new
> model). The 4L V6 is better after they gave it some more power a few years
> ago, but the full size truck mileage mumbers stink.
>
> Next there's GM that dumps the compact truck and intruduces a redesigned
> "midsized" pickup in the midst of higher gas prices. Fuel economy could be a
> bit better and it still gets the solid black dot treatment with CRs
> reliability score - just like the crappy S10 it replaced.
>
> Pontiac. Lets build cars that all the models look the same! Let's make the
> GTO a family appeal car. RIP new GTO. Sheesh.
>
> Overall, their problem is they are too slow in responding to the marketplace
> and seem to clueless in designing cars with appeal.
> John
and that their cars have been and in some cases are still less
reliable than their Japanese competitors. And lastly, Ford and GM
are saddled with some very, very high retirement and healthcare
costs that makes each car the actually are able to sell less
profitable. GM and Ford are currently losing BILLIONS of dollars
annually because of all of this.
You mentioned that they could still make a comeback. They better do
something very drastic soon or it ain't gonna happen.
> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:329Ag.14787$PO.7806@dukeread03...
>> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:uH8Ag.3649$8v.1563@trnddc05...
>>> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>>>
>>> 1) Toyota
>>> 2) Honda
>>> 3) Hyundai
>>> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
>>
>>
>> Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece
>> of compared to anything Japaneese or American.
>>
> Hundai is a heck of a success story. Near death after selling a bunch of
> crappy cars, they turned things completely around in recent years.
>
> Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback.
>
> IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. All
> the teens want Hondas and Toyotas and probably continue buying them as they
> age. I've worked for the same emplyer for 17 years and know many people
> well. If they're not driving a Ford or GM truck, then it is a Toyota, Honda
> or Mazda. Many of the US passenger cars are older models. One minor trend is
> a couple of new Ford Fusions out in the lot.
>
> I find myself wanting a Toyota Yaris liftback. I find myself needing
> something with better mileage for daily driving (I need to keep the truck
> for hauling for my side business). Once I again, the American Automakers are
> asleep at the wheel. They don't produce anything that compares to the
> Yaris/Fit/Scion. Yes GM has the Aveo, but what's with the crappy fuel
> mileage? I looked at the Focus, but the design looks tired and boring after
> nearly 7 years.
>
> Next there's the Ranger compact truck. A decent, reliable vehicle that
> actually has some Japanese hardware in it, but Ford won't redesign years
> after it should have been and the "middle" engine is the anemic 3.0L V6 that
> gets SUV like gas milege and has less HP than many 4 bangers (like GMs new
> model). The 4L V6 is better after they gave it some more power a few years
> ago, but the full size truck mileage mumbers stink.
>
> Next there's GM that dumps the compact truck and intruduces a redesigned
> "midsized" pickup in the midst of higher gas prices. Fuel economy could be a
> bit better and it still gets the solid black dot treatment with CRs
> reliability score - just like the crappy S10 it replaced.
>
> Pontiac. Lets build cars that all the models look the same! Let's make the
> GTO a family appeal car. RIP new GTO. Sheesh.
>
> Overall, their problem is they are too slow in responding to the marketplace
> and seem to clueless in designing cars with appeal.
> John
and that their cars have been and in some cases are still less
reliable than their Japanese competitors. And lastly, Ford and GM
are saddled with some very, very high retirement and healthcare
costs that makes each car the actually are able to sell less
profitable. GM and Ford are currently losing BILLIONS of dollars
annually because of all of this.
You mentioned that they could still make a comeback. They better do
something very drastic soon or it ain't gonna happen.
#239
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
JohnR66 wrote:
> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:329Ag.14787$PO.7806@dukeread03...
>> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:uH8Ag.3649$8v.1563@trnddc05...
>>> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>>>
>>> 1) Toyota
>>> 2) Honda
>>> 3) Hyundai
>>> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
>>
>>
>> Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece
>> of compared to anything Japaneese or American.
>>
> Hundai is a heck of a success story. Near death after selling a bunch of
> crappy cars, they turned things completely around in recent years.
>
> Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback.
>
> IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. All
> the teens want Hondas and Toyotas and probably continue buying them as they
> age. I've worked for the same emplyer for 17 years and know many people
> well. If they're not driving a Ford or GM truck, then it is a Toyota, Honda
> or Mazda. Many of the US passenger cars are older models. One minor trend is
> a couple of new Ford Fusions out in the lot.
>
> I find myself wanting a Toyota Yaris liftback. I find myself needing
> something with better mileage for daily driving (I need to keep the truck
> for hauling for my side business). Once I again, the American Automakers are
> asleep at the wheel. They don't produce anything that compares to the
> Yaris/Fit/Scion. Yes GM has the Aveo, but what's with the crappy fuel
> mileage? I looked at the Focus, but the design looks tired and boring after
> nearly 7 years.
>
> Next there's the Ranger compact truck. A decent, reliable vehicle that
> actually has some Japanese hardware in it, but Ford won't redesign years
> after it should have been and the "middle" engine is the anemic 3.0L V6 that
> gets SUV like gas milege and has less HP than many 4 bangers (like GMs new
> model). The 4L V6 is better after they gave it some more power a few years
> ago, but the full size truck mileage mumbers stink.
>
> Next there's GM that dumps the compact truck and intruduces a redesigned
> "midsized" pickup in the midst of higher gas prices. Fuel economy could be a
> bit better and it still gets the solid black dot treatment with CRs
> reliability score - just like the crappy S10 it replaced.
>
> Pontiac. Lets build cars that all the models look the same! Let's make the
> GTO a family appeal car. RIP new GTO. Sheesh.
>
> Overall, their problem is they are too slow in responding to the marketplace
> and seem to clueless in designing cars with appeal.
> John
and that their cars have been and in some cases are still less
reliable than their Japanese competitors. And lastly, Ford and GM
are saddled with some very, very high retirement and healthcare
costs that makes each car the actually are able to sell less
profitable. GM and Ford are currently losing BILLIONS of dollars
annually because of all of this.
You mentioned that they could still make a comeback. They better do
something very drastic soon or it ain't gonna happen.
> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:329Ag.14787$PO.7806@dukeread03...
>> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:uH8Ag.3649$8v.1563@trnddc05...
>>> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>>>
>>> 1) Toyota
>>> 2) Honda
>>> 3) Hyundai
>>> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
>>
>>
>> Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece
>> of compared to anything Japaneese or American.
>>
> Hundai is a heck of a success story. Near death after selling a bunch of
> crappy cars, they turned things completely around in recent years.
>
> Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback.
>
> IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. All
> the teens want Hondas and Toyotas and probably continue buying them as they
> age. I've worked for the same emplyer for 17 years and know many people
> well. If they're not driving a Ford or GM truck, then it is a Toyota, Honda
> or Mazda. Many of the US passenger cars are older models. One minor trend is
> a couple of new Ford Fusions out in the lot.
>
> I find myself wanting a Toyota Yaris liftback. I find myself needing
> something with better mileage for daily driving (I need to keep the truck
> for hauling for my side business). Once I again, the American Automakers are
> asleep at the wheel. They don't produce anything that compares to the
> Yaris/Fit/Scion. Yes GM has the Aveo, but what's with the crappy fuel
> mileage? I looked at the Focus, but the design looks tired and boring after
> nearly 7 years.
>
> Next there's the Ranger compact truck. A decent, reliable vehicle that
> actually has some Japanese hardware in it, but Ford won't redesign years
> after it should have been and the "middle" engine is the anemic 3.0L V6 that
> gets SUV like gas milege and has less HP than many 4 bangers (like GMs new
> model). The 4L V6 is better after they gave it some more power a few years
> ago, but the full size truck mileage mumbers stink.
>
> Next there's GM that dumps the compact truck and intruduces a redesigned
> "midsized" pickup in the midst of higher gas prices. Fuel economy could be a
> bit better and it still gets the solid black dot treatment with CRs
> reliability score - just like the crappy S10 it replaced.
>
> Pontiac. Lets build cars that all the models look the same! Let's make the
> GTO a family appeal car. RIP new GTO. Sheesh.
>
> Overall, their problem is they are too slow in responding to the marketplace
> and seem to clueless in designing cars with appeal.
> John
and that their cars have been and in some cases are still less
reliable than their Japanese competitors. And lastly, Ford and GM
are saddled with some very, very high retirement and healthcare
costs that makes each car the actually are able to sell less
profitable. GM and Ford are currently losing BILLIONS of dollars
annually because of all of this.
You mentioned that they could still make a comeback. They better do
something very drastic soon or it ain't gonna happen.
#240
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
JohnR66 wrote:
> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:329Ag.14787$PO.7806@dukeread03...
>> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:uH8Ag.3649$8v.1563@trnddc05...
>>> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>>>
>>> 1) Toyota
>>> 2) Honda
>>> 3) Hyundai
>>> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
>>
>>
>> Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece
>> of compared to anything Japaneese or American.
>>
> Hundai is a heck of a success story. Near death after selling a bunch of
> crappy cars, they turned things completely around in recent years.
>
> Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback.
>
> IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. All
> the teens want Hondas and Toyotas and probably continue buying them as they
> age. I've worked for the same emplyer for 17 years and know many people
> well. If they're not driving a Ford or GM truck, then it is a Toyota, Honda
> or Mazda. Many of the US passenger cars are older models. One minor trend is
> a couple of new Ford Fusions out in the lot.
>
> I find myself wanting a Toyota Yaris liftback. I find myself needing
> something with better mileage for daily driving (I need to keep the truck
> for hauling for my side business). Once I again, the American Automakers are
> asleep at the wheel. They don't produce anything that compares to the
> Yaris/Fit/Scion. Yes GM has the Aveo, but what's with the crappy fuel
> mileage? I looked at the Focus, but the design looks tired and boring after
> nearly 7 years.
>
> Next there's the Ranger compact truck. A decent, reliable vehicle that
> actually has some Japanese hardware in it, but Ford won't redesign years
> after it should have been and the "middle" engine is the anemic 3.0L V6 that
> gets SUV like gas milege and has less HP than many 4 bangers (like GMs new
> model). The 4L V6 is better after they gave it some more power a few years
> ago, but the full size truck mileage mumbers stink.
>
> Next there's GM that dumps the compact truck and intruduces a redesigned
> "midsized" pickup in the midst of higher gas prices. Fuel economy could be a
> bit better and it still gets the solid black dot treatment with CRs
> reliability score - just like the crappy S10 it replaced.
>
> Pontiac. Lets build cars that all the models look the same! Let's make the
> GTO a family appeal car. RIP new GTO. Sheesh.
>
> Overall, their problem is they are too slow in responding to the marketplace
> and seem to clueless in designing cars with appeal.
> John
and that their cars have been and in some cases are still less
reliable than their Japanese competitors. And lastly, Ford and GM
are saddled with some very, very high retirement and healthcare
costs that makes each car the actually are able to sell less
profitable. GM and Ford are currently losing BILLIONS of dollars
annually because of all of this.
You mentioned that they could still make a comeback. They better do
something very drastic soon or it ain't gonna happen.
> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:329Ag.14787$PO.7806@dukeread03...
>> "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:uH8Ag.3649$8v.1563@trnddc05...
>>> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>>>
>>> 1) Toyota
>>> 2) Honda
>>> 3) Hyundai
>>> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
>>
>>
>> Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece
>> of compared to anything Japaneese or American.
>>
> Hundai is a heck of a success story. Near death after selling a bunch of
> crappy cars, they turned things completely around in recent years.
>
> Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback.
>
> IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. All
> the teens want Hondas and Toyotas and probably continue buying them as they
> age. I've worked for the same emplyer for 17 years and know many people
> well. If they're not driving a Ford or GM truck, then it is a Toyota, Honda
> or Mazda. Many of the US passenger cars are older models. One minor trend is
> a couple of new Ford Fusions out in the lot.
>
> I find myself wanting a Toyota Yaris liftback. I find myself needing
> something with better mileage for daily driving (I need to keep the truck
> for hauling for my side business). Once I again, the American Automakers are
> asleep at the wheel. They don't produce anything that compares to the
> Yaris/Fit/Scion. Yes GM has the Aveo, but what's with the crappy fuel
> mileage? I looked at the Focus, but the design looks tired and boring after
> nearly 7 years.
>
> Next there's the Ranger compact truck. A decent, reliable vehicle that
> actually has some Japanese hardware in it, but Ford won't redesign years
> after it should have been and the "middle" engine is the anemic 3.0L V6 that
> gets SUV like gas milege and has less HP than many 4 bangers (like GMs new
> model). The 4L V6 is better after they gave it some more power a few years
> ago, but the full size truck mileage mumbers stink.
>
> Next there's GM that dumps the compact truck and intruduces a redesigned
> "midsized" pickup in the midst of higher gas prices. Fuel economy could be a
> bit better and it still gets the solid black dot treatment with CRs
> reliability score - just like the crappy S10 it replaced.
>
> Pontiac. Lets build cars that all the models look the same! Let's make the
> GTO a family appeal car. RIP new GTO. Sheesh.
>
> Overall, their problem is they are too slow in responding to the marketplace
> and seem to clueless in designing cars with appeal.
> John
and that their cars have been and in some cases are still less
reliable than their Japanese competitors. And lastly, Ford and GM
are saddled with some very, very high retirement and healthcare
costs that makes each car the actually are able to sell less
profitable. GM and Ford are currently losing BILLIONS of dollars
annually because of all of this.
You mentioned that they could still make a comeback. They better do
something very drastic soon or it ain't gonna happen.