Automotive News, Media & Press - Ford drops to #4

I found this on camaroz28.com and i was like wow. I cant wait to tell the mustang boy at work about it. He's going to ----> :cry:


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061202/BUSINESS01/612020354

None of the American car makers are doing so hot. So there really isn't much to brag about.

GM had to push HARD to get rid of a lot of cars sitting on dealer lots. Employee pricing, yada yada yada, they extended all that so many times.

American stuff isn't moving off the lot, line production has dropped a ton. Bad situation...

Lets just hope Ford toughs it out, and comes out fighting. It ain't about brand preference, it's about our damned economy!

this isnt a good thing. i want ford to pull out of this.

Not something to cheer for. US automakers are in trouble and the root is at the employee benefits and contracts.

Not something to cheer for. US automakers are in trouble and the root is at the employee benefits and contracts.


not correct. upper mngt. has made bad decisions for decades. its not the unions fault sales have dropped yr. after yr. its not their fault quality and reliability wasnt as good as imports. cutting corners and using cheaper parts caught up with them. its corp. greed and stupidity that put them where they are.

unions arent blameless but they have no control over mngt. stupidity.

People are buying imports more, that means more money is going to japan than staying here.

not correct. upper mngt. has made bad decisions for decades. its not the unions fault sales have dropped yr. after yr. its not their fault quality and reliability wasnt as good as imports. cutting corners and using cheaper parts caught up with them. its corp. greed and stupidity that put them where they are.

unions arent blameless but they have no control over mngt. stupidity.
I STRONGLY disagree. Although unions are great in most ways this is the true root of the problem. Only in a union can my uncle, who has not helped to build ONE single car in 5+ years because his GM plant closed, get paid in full with full benefits. And GM's benefits blow away any other job in the world. Multiply the tens of thousands of workers that are receiving pay for not working and you have a problem. If this is not fixed GM and Ford will go under no matter what product line is out or how big these companies are.

American women (the major purchasers of imports) need to be brought back to the real world and forgive GM and Ford for the crap that was built back in the 70's and early 80's. Money going overseas is very detrimental to the economy and American way. I don't care where they build the foreign cars in the U.S. as the jobs they created have just partially replaced the jobs lost, and at much LOWER salaries. The profits still go to the foreigners. I have forgiven Chevy for the Vega and Ford for the Pinto. Time to move forward and hope the 'big boys' never do that to us again. Today's American cars are decent, not great, but certainly not a risk when 5 year 100k warranties are now commonplace.

I always try to buy stuff made in the usa, Snap-On, Craftman, GM cars, and anything else that I need. It might cost more but i know it's helping the economy.

Can the worthless ass unions move plants into right to work states and all three of them will be fine in the long run. No business can make money paying people to sit on their ass. The japanese companies have already proven a high quality reliable vehicle can be made and produced right here in America with American labor and without all of the union bs attached. They have been doing it for almost twenty years already. Toyota is a prime example with their plant they just opened in San Antonio, Texas.

I wish them luck, it was sad hearing the plant closures Ford was facing. I'm not a ford guy buy any stretch, but i'll root for Ford over any import. We need to keep the American Auto industry alive, for the american investors, american engineers, american workers etc... A vehicle assembled in the U.S. does nothing for our economy compared to what a vehicle made could do.

I STRONGLY disagree. Although unions are great in most ways this is the true root of the problem. Only in a union can my uncle, who has not helped to build ONE single car in 5+ years because his GM plant closed, get paid in full with full benefits. And GM's benefits blow away any other job in the world. Multiply the tens of thousands of workers that are receiving pay for not working and you have a problem. If this is not fixed GM and Ford will go under no matter what product line is out or how big these companies are.


that was negotiated. how is that the unions fault they agreed to this?


it still has no effect on poor sales and designs and defects and warranty claims. thats no fault of unions nor is skyrocketing health costs.

Can the worthless ass unions move plants into right to work states and all three of them will be fine in the long run. No business can make money paying people to sit on their ass. The japanese companies have already proven a high quality reliable vehicle can be made and produced right here in America with American labor and without all of the union bs attached. They have been doing it for almost twenty years already. Toyota is a prime example with their plant they just opened in San Antonio, Texas.


toyota pays similarly to UAW plants to keep them out. once again, unions arent why quality is poor. thats mngt. greed and stupidity.

btw, the titan has had many quality problems if thats the plant youre referring to.

...Tax breaks for American car buyers...

American women (the major purchasers of imports) need to be brought back to the real world and forgive GM and Ford for the crap that was built back in the 70's and early 80's. Money going overseas is very detrimental to the economy and American way. I don't care where they build the foreign cars in the U.S. as the jobs they created have just partially replaced the jobs lost, and at much LOWER salaries. The profits still go to the foreigners. I have forgiven Chevy for the Vega and Ford for the Pinto. Time to move forward and hope the 'big boys' never do that to us again. Today's American cars are decent, not great, but certainly not a risk when 5 year 100k warranties are now commonplace.
What is your beef with women? I mean, I'm a women hater myself, but geeze...it's their dumbtastic ideas and worthless brians, ok, I see your point, but it ain't just women that are buying imports. If there had been a decent, affordable, stylistic, and relatively quick and fun car from the American auto makers (that wasn't an SRT-4 neon), I might be driving one. Alas, there isn't anything that fit me and my personality.

:stupid:

Im am by far happy that ford is having a hard time. I hope they come out of this stronger than ever. I will always buy american. But it will always be gm first.

I just dont see anything in fords line up that would make me go get one. There are more and better choice's at gm and d/c.

One or two cars like the mustang or fuzion cant hold a company together.

gvmnt should just highly tax the foreign cars and pass the extra cost to the consumer...might be illegal but damnit, ill never buy foreign!

gvmnt should just highly tax the foreign cars and pass the extra cost to the consumer...might be illegal but damnit, ill never buy foreign!
It's not that...they just need to levy a tarriff on the shit that's imported to keep the bastards (CHINA) from fucking with the monetary exchange rates and developing a trade deficit.

If the big three would look to the jap's methods of marketing, engineering and quality control they stand a good chance at coming out. But is seems like in detroit the lights are on but no one is home. Regardless of what is causing it a company cannot lose money like they are and keep the doors open. I was a die hard gm guy until recently but nothing in there model line is exciting or affordable. I'll stick to rebuilding their old stuff my 98 k3500 and my 96 s-10. But my big pisser with gm is their quality control and customer service. I did a caddy clip conversion on my 98' I ordered all gm parts. The driverside fender flare is on back order it has come in incorrect or damaged four different times. I ordered it back in June so I have a 4500 front clip and no fender flares. We do tons of business through our shop with them my bitching has gone up the line and no one cares. I also kept having problems with leaking new gm injectors in the BBC in the same truck. I put one set in I paid for and two sets that were very reluctantly given under warranty. When it's hot they leak down. I destroyed three starters with the occasional backfire. I put a set of injectors for a 4.6 crown vic in it which are the same 19lb/hr and changed the electrical connectors and it has driven and started flawlessly everytime for the last month. So if there are any gm engineers reading this pm me please with an excuse I'd love to hear it . :mad: :upyours:

that was negotiated. how is that the unions fault they agreed to this?[QUOTE=ULTIMATEORANGESS]


Im not saying its the unions falut for agreeing to it, hey that was a smart move on their part (and a dumb mngmt move) so I am kind of agreeing with you there. Im just pointing out that the unions contract is a problem, would you not agree? I mean how clear can this get, workers are being paid for not working, this is bad.

[QUOTE] it still has no effect on poor sales and designs and defects and warranty claims. thats no fault of unions nor is skyrocketing health costs.
How can you possible think this? If the contract was restructured so that workers who are actually working get paid, then this would free up a scary amount of money within the companies. This cash can then be pumped into product lines improving designs, defects, warranties, initial vehicle MSRP's and just about everthing else possible.

[QUOTE=ULTIMATEORANGESS]that was negotiated. how is that the unions fault they agreed to this?[QUOTE=ULTIMATEORANGESS]


Im not saying its the unions falut for agreeing to it, hey that was a smart move on their part (and a dumb mngmt move) so I am kind of agreeing with you there. Im just pointing out that the unions contract is a problem, would you not agree? I mean how clear can this get, workers are being paid for not working, this is bad.


How can you possible think this? If the contract was restructured so that workers who are actually working get paid, then this would free up a scary amount of money within the companies. This cash can then be pumped into product lines improving designs, defects, warranties, initial vehicle MSRP's and just about everthing else possible.


the UAW has made many concessions. they dont just get something and not give back they've agreed to plant closings and buyouts and paying for some of their benefits. fact is membership has been declining.


the fact that ford and the other domestic carmakers didnt invest their profits wisely has nothing to do with the current contract. for yrs. they made tons of money and didnt look towards the future and now its costing them.

its not the unions fault cars like the explorer had bad ties and tipped over,its not their fault fords trucks caught on fire and its not their fault focuses were recalled the most in automotive history.


perhaps if mngt. cared about the co. instead of huge bonuses and flying planes at the co. expense maybe they'd be in better shape. how bout all the money paid out to CEOs that ran the co. into the ground then left with huge payouts.

unions are far less to blame for the big threes downfall than mngt. FAR LESS.

None of the American car makers are doing so hot. So there really isn't much to brag about.

GM had to push HARD to get rid of a lot of cars sitting on dealer lots. Employee pricing, yada yada yada, they extended all that so many times.

American stuff isn't moving off the lot, line production has dropped a ton. Bad situation...

Lets just hope Ford toughs it out, and comes out fighting. It ain't about brand preference, it's about our damned economy!

Wow, excellent post my friend! :drive:

This is exactly why I have both a Ford and GM product in the garage.

UltimateorangeSS, agreed, it is more managements fault than anyone for leading the company into a downward spiral in the first place. Both sides are in the worng, and have got to negotiate before a bankruptcy or merger forces them to.

UltimateorangeSS, agreed, it is more managements fault than anyone for leading the company into a downward spiral in the first place. Both sides are in the worng, and have got to negotiate before a bankruptcy or merger forces them to.


heres an interesting article. these job banks that laid off employees are in are becoming less of a factor with buyouts.



http://kiplingerforecasts.com/home/stories/auto_unions_ready_to_deal.html

It's not that...they just need to levy a tarriff on the shit that's imported to keep the bastards (CHINA) from fucking with the monetary exchange rates and developing a trade deficit.

You mean like we FAILED to do with Japan, enabling them to so thoroughly and brutally RAPE our economy??! The sad part is, if we fail to control China in the same manner, they have the potential to finish us off without a hope in the world to save us. :(

heres an interesting article. these job banks that laid off employees are in are becoming less of a factor with buyouts.



http://kiplingerforecasts.com/home/stories/auto_unions_ready_to_deal.html
Wow, a lot of good info. there, just what we are talking about. Good thing for my uncle he'll be retiring in a year or two. The future looks to be tough for everyone.

I found this on camaroz28.com and i was like wow. I cant wait to tell the mustang boy at work about it. He's going to ----> :cry:


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061202/BUSINESS01/612020354

Sounds like GM is doing better, at least in the short term.

I disagree with all the doomsday bandwagoning around this site. GM will be just fine. They will never have market share like they did in the 50s and 60s, but they won't be going under either, unless things get A HELL of a lot worse first. Unless rankings have recently changed, last I read GM is still the 3rd largest corporation in the world in terms of total sales dollars, behind ExxonMobil and Walmart. They still have a lot of money coming in but obviously too much going out. Once they sort things out with the UAW they will be in decent shape with plenty of promise for the future. Their pipeline looks good and people are coming back into their showrooms. Warranties are improving significantly. Inital quality rankings for the brand are way up, close to equaling their asian rivals (or possibily already are?).

GM will survive. :judge:

I hope Ford makes a turnaround as well. I have nothing aganist Ford, and I hope they can provide a solid future for themselves and their customers.

Sorta off topic... but why do they call them the Big Three in the US all the time? Last time I checked Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge was all owned by Mercedes. :)

Only since I have gotten into cars, have I become a bit more comfortable liking Ford. Part of it has to do with the whole performance aspect behind the cars. The Mustang and F-Body you could almost call brothers, bother have huge markets behind them that back them up. You get the people that hate a Mustang because it is a Mustang, but I am sure if a sweet deal came along, they would be tempted to buy! :judge: Next car I am actually looking into will probably be a Terminator Cobra.

I think Ford will be fine, along with GM. They have more than people give them credit for, especially in quality. I drive my 98 GTP and short of a tranny going out on me out of no where (thank you 3.4 pully! :jest: ) I have had no problems with it other than my front tires mysteriously getting eaten away! :) My Trans Am has no squeeks or rattles in it that I can hear and more than once I can catch people eyeballing it and trying not to make it look obvious, generally people in their Jap cars.

My family has owned GM since the late 60's, generally speaking it is all that they would buy. My dad has a 90 Transport he bought with 2k miles on it, only problem we had was the engine seized, after my brother ran it dry on oil, at 280kish miles. No other thing on the car ever touched. My dad bought a Grand Am with the Quad 4 that the magazines dubbed "very unreliable" if very unreliable is my winter car 17 years later with original tranny, never touched, and engine that lasted to 245k miles, was rebuilt, and the car is now at 268k miles and gets 30+, guess I will take "very unreliable". :eyes:

Part of the problem I agree, is management, another problem, is the unions, a possibly even bigger problem, is the Auto Mags. People take what they say as the holy grail. They will tell you about your Toyota Prius getting 60 mpg and all the neat little things it will do, but they wont tell you that it really doesn't get the 60 mpg, it will get stuck in more than 6" of snow, and when you use cruise control it constantly surges... how do I know? A Toyota dealership convinced my Grandma to buy one for $47k. They had her buy all these warranties and crap and gave her it fully loaded. She took it into the dealership complaining about the surging and they told her, "they do that, its normal, it helps you get the better mileage." Which my Ford Probe rivals, 35mpg to her 42mpg she gets. When I went into the dealership for one of the service deals, one of them tried to talk me into buying a Echo, they told me, "It will last to 300k+ miles no problem..." When I asked him to show me one, he was dumbfounded. :eyes:

Ford will survive... They aren't even close to what Dodge was 20 years back, before Ford goes completely under I bet the gov would kick in and help them out... lot of money for the US economy to loose...

WOW well said. I hope ford comes through. I think gm, ford and dcx should always be on top. :chug:

Only in a union can my uncle, who has not helped to build ONE single car in 5+ years because his GM plant closed, get paid in full with full benefits. And GM's benefits blow away any other job in the world. Multiply the tens of thousands of workers that are receiving pay for not working and you have a problem. If this is not fixed GM and Ford will go under no matter what product line is out or how big these companies are. I have heard this said before but nobody seems to mention the flip side of the coin. Yes , GM workers do get 80% of pay and benefits when laid off BUT there is a catch: it comes out of their retirement pension. So , in essence , they're not getting "free" money from GM , they're eroding their retirement. Not so good when you think about it...

The UAW is a big part of GM's problem. Sure you can argue that they have to build a good car...blah blah blah. Fact is they have five of the worlds best selling vehicles. GM has no problem selling cars on par with any other automaker out there at this time.

FACT: GM loses around $800 on every car they sell.

That being the case, can anybody explain to me how sales numbers have ANYTHING to do with their problems? If you're losing money on every item you sell, you could sell 200 quadjillion and you'd only be farther in the hole.

Bottom line is - GM must cut overhead to succeed. They have already proven this to be true. Their new labor contracts and trimmed down workforce, plus the insane buyouts they've been offering, have reduced their losses by more than half in only a year.

Complain all you want about the cars, they have nothing to do with the problem.

The UAW is a big part of GM's problem. Sure you can argue that they have to build a good car...blah blah blah. Fact is they have five of the worlds best selling vehicles. GM has no problem selling cars on par with any other automaker out there at this time.

FACT: GM loses around $800 on every car they sell.

That being the case, can anybody explain to me how sales numbers have ANYTHING to do with their problems? If you're losing money on every item you sell, you could sell 200 quadjillion and you'd only be farther in the hole.

Bottom line is - GM must cut overhead to succeed. They have already proven this to be true. Their new labor contracts and trimmed down workforce, plus the insane buyouts they've been offering, have reduced their losses by more than half in only a year.

Complain all you want about the cars, they have nothing to do with the problem.


how can you say their cars have nothing to do with the problem? they lose money because sales have been declining in NA for yrs. and they have to discount them to move them. up until recently domestic automakers have had a reputation for making subpar vehicles and that has caused people to buy imports and in order to try and get sales back theyve been offering incentives to do that. thats why theyve been losing money. numbers dont mean shit if you cant sell them at a profit.


the reason they have to cut back is because theyve been losing marketshare at a rapid rate to imports. recalls,warranty claims,using cheaper parts that break or fail is why the big three are losing ground.


fact is they failed to reinvest when they were making money and now its come back to hurt them. the big three have been so poorly managed for such a long time and now theyre playing catchup.


the UAW has nothing to do with poorly designed and undesirable cars. they have nothing to do with vehicles catching on fire and tipping over. they have nothing to do with paint defects. all those things effect profits because it makes people spend their money elsewhere causing CARS to sit in showrooms and forcing dealers to discount them at little to no profit to move them.

how can you say their cars have nothing to do with the problem? they lose money because sales have been declining in NA for yrs. and they have to discount them to move them. up until recently domestic automakers have had a reputation for making subpar vehicles and that has caused people to buy imports and in order to try and get sales back theyve been offering incentives to do that.

All these points are meaningless when you aren't making money on the cars you sell. Quality doens't even come into the picture here, it's not part of the equation:

Sell one car at an $800 loss: -800 X 1 = -800
Sell 1 million cars for same: -800 X 1,000,000 = -800,000,000

In both scenarios you lost money. Period.

numbers dont mean shit if you cant sell them at a profit.

Isn't that what I just said?

the reason they have to cut back is because theyve been losing marketshare at a rapid rate to imports. recalls,warranty claims,using cheaper parts that break or fail is why the big three are losing ground.

Yes, and?

fact is they failed to reinvest when they were making money and now its come back to hurt them. the big three have been so poorly managed for such a long time and now theyre playing catchup.

You can blame long term management for the problem, because they did nothing to shore up the labor contract issues for years, so yes this is true.

the UAW has nothing to do with poorly designed and undesirable cars.

Right, and niether does GM's problems.

All these points are meaningless when you aren't making money on the cars you sell. Quality doens't even come into the picture here, it's not part of the equation:

Sell one car at an $800 loss: -800 X 1 = -800
Sell 1 million cars for same: -800 X 1,000,000 = -800,000,000

In both scenarios you lost money. Period.



Isn't that what I just said?



Yes, and?



You can blame long term management for the problem, because they did nothing to shore up the labor contract issues for years, so yes this is true.



Right, and niether does GM's problems.


you dont get it. they've been losing money on cars because theyve had a bad reputation for having poor quality therefore causing lower sales and forcing them to use incentives to move them. 5k off and 0% doesnt makeyou money. get it now?

no, you can blame management for designing poor vehicles that people didnt want. it had nothing to do with unions. they made money for decades and refused to prepare for the future.

GMs problems have nothing to do with designing cars people dont want? is that what your last line means? :eek2:


http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/17/news/fortune500/gm_woes/index.htm

heres some more info. its simple. GM needs to sell more cars and sell them at a profit and not give them away. and once again. if they choose to give car away at a loss thats not the UAWs fault.

you dont get it. they've been losing money on cars because theyve had a bad reputation for having poor quality therefore causing lower sales and forcing them to use incentives to move them. 5k off and 0% doesnt makeyou money. get it now?

no, you can blame management for designing poor vehicles that people didnt want. it had nothing to do with unions. they made money for decades and refused to prepare for the future.

GMs problems have nothing to do with designing cars people dont want? is that what your last line means? :eek2:


http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/17/news/fortune500/gm_woes/index.htm

heres some more info. its simple. GM needs to sell more cars and sell them at a profit and not give them away. and once again. if they choose to give car away at a loss thats not the UAWs fault.

I don't get it? You need to provide proof of that.

Here it is, broken down...

FACT: The UAW is responsible for GM's massive health care obligation.
FACT: Due to GM's massive health care obligation, they lose money on every vehicle they sell.
FACT: If you lose money on each sale, it doesn't matter how many you sell, you will lose money.

There it is. It doesn't get any simpler. If you want to argue this, pick out the FACT you dispute, and we'll go from there.

Once GM can start making money on the cars it sells, we can then argue over weather or not they are up to par on quality and desirability standards.

I don't get it? You need to provide proof of that.

Here it is, broken down...

FACT: The UAW is responsible for GM's massive health care obligation.
FACT: Due to GM's massive health care obligation, they lose money on every vehicle they sell.
FACT: If you lose money on each sale, it doesn't matter how many you sell, you will lose money.

There it is. It doesn't get any simpler. If you want to argue this, pick out the FACT you dispute, and we'll go from there.

Once GM can start making money on the cars it sells, we can then argue over weather or not they are up to par on quality and desirability standards.

so its the UAWs fault health care costs are out of control? how so?

i'll say it again since you obviously didnt read the link. GM has been losing marketshare for decades. still with me?

because sales decline profits do along with it. understand?


BECAUSE of lagging sales theyve been forced to sell cars at a lower profit or no profit or at a loss. it has NOTHING to with the UAW why they cant sell cars. NOTHING!


so please explain to me why GM made record profits when they were paying for UAW employee benefits and now theyre not. very easy answer. :D

sales dropped due to GMs vehicles not being on par with imports. how can you think otherwise? if you say that isnt why then explain the drop in marketshare for me.

benefits were agreed upon at the time of contract negotiations. the UAW agreed to buyouts and plant closings to keep their benefits so dont think it came for nothing.

im not saying health care costs arent a problem but GMs problems stem from poor mngt decisions. PERIOD.
link here saying poor sales contributing to loss in profits. imagine that.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05076/472451.stm

link here showing totoya having better initial quality and how it hurt GM sales.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/30/pf/autos/power_rankings/index.htm
things are now changing but i think i proved my point. :)

here i go again providing proof health costs arent the only reason GM loses money on each vehicle sold.





http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/10/03/study-domestic-automakers-losing-money-on-every-vehicle/

what do u mean imports compare better than american. Ever had a dsm with the timing chain issue that when the chain breaks the engine is toast. Or a rx-7 that the apex seals tend to only last 100,000 miles then the engine is done. Or a vr-4 that cant hold a tranny together. what im trying to point out that almost every car manufactuar builds some reliable cars and some not so reliable cars. Also would u rather buy a 47k dollar prius that gets 42 mpg or a neon, cobalt or focus for 1/4 the price that gets in the mid 30 mpg range. What country do u live in? Then support it!

why dont north american automakers market in asia like india,china (2billion ppl). even if they only get like ~5% market share, they'll be makin up for the slow downs in north america.

what do u mean imports compare better than american. Ever had a dsm with the timing chain issue that when the chain breaks the engine is toast. Or a rx-7 that the apex seals tend to only last 100,000 miles then the engine is done. Or a vr-4 that cant hold a tranny together. what im trying to point out that almost every car manufactuar builds some reliable cars and some not so reliable cars. Also would u rather buy a 47k dollar prius that gets 42 mpg or a neon, cobalt or focus for 1/4 the price that gets in the mid 30 mpg range. What country do u live in? Then support it!

now its more of a perception than anything but domestics for awhile werent as good as a toyota or honda. GM is doing very well now with initial quality.

no need to convince me to buy domestic. :)

why dont north american automakers market in asia like india,china (2billion ppl). even if they only get like ~5% market share, they'll be makin up for the slow downs in north america.


GM kicks ass in china.

GM kicks ass in china.

Last I read, GM is the top 3 in China.

They are still #1 in the US as well but the race is much closer here. I don't beleive Toyota has overtaken them yet based on units sold for '06, but the gap is small.

Last I read, GM is the top 3 in China.

They are still #1 in the US as well but the race is much closer here. I don't beleive Toyota has overtaken them yet based on units sold for '06, but the gap is small.


theyre # 1 now. :)


:drive:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061202/BUSINESS01/612020356

If I read that right. Even though fords sales are down 16% they still sold more trucks than every one else. And yet their still ahead in total year sales. Now this is including the F150, F250, F350. But hell the damn imports are everywhere, if they (Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford) could pull their heads out of their $$$ then maybe they would see a change.

if they (Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford) could pull their heads out of their $$$ then maybe they would see a change.

GM is already seeing a change. A full turnaround will take just as long as it took them to decline. But things are improving (slowly) for them, the numbers show it.

Warranties are better. Initial quality is better. Designs are getting better. Base prices have dropped. Sales are (slightly) better. All these factors will bring more customers into the showrooms and pulling out in new GM cars. They are working with the UAW to get their spending further under control. It's the begining of the road to recovery. What else do you want them to do? GM is a massive company. They are the 3rd largest coroporation in the world in terms of gross sales dollars (just behind ExxonMobil and Walmart). Major change takes time when you're that big.

There are too many points here and you are misinterpreting my comments I think.

so its the UAWs fault health care costs are out of control? how so?

GM didn't OFFER all the benefits it now provides it's workforce, the UAW pulled for them. If the union didn't ask, it wouldn't get. So sure you could argue that "well GM agreed to the deals" but if they didn't, tell me where they'd be now? Nonexistent, that's where.

i'll say it again since you obviously didnt read the link. GM has been losing marketshare for decades. still with me?

See you say things like this alot, but what's your point? I don't disagree here. But you may be misinterpreting a loss in market share as a direct corrolation to a loss in effectiveness. You can't assert that it's that clean cut. As GM's market share has been on the decline, so has the size of it's competitors. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.

because sales decline profits do along with it. understand?

Duh. But again, you can't claim this to be a direct relation. It's not. There are just too many factors involved.

BECAUSE of lagging sales theyve been forced to sell cars at a lower profit or no profit or at a loss. it has NOTHING to with the UAW why they cant sell cars. NOTHING!

Here's a good point to look at.

GM has been forced to sell cars at a loss because of it's overhead, because of overloaded inventories, and because of fierce competition. However the only one of those reason that can be blamed on its own for the per-vehicle loss figures is overhead. Yeah they had to discount cars forcing them to lose EVEN MORE money...note that I said EVEN MORE...because the $800-and-some-odd dollar figure is based on MSRP, not discounts. So they were losing this money per vehicle BEFORE any of those discounts you speak of...and THAT, my friend, is why it's largely due to the UAW and the generous compensatory packages they forced.


so please explain to me why GM made record profits when they were paying for UAW employee benefits and now theyre not. very easy answer. :D

Again, you are not considering all the factors. Can you show me a year in which they made record profits, and also show me the size of their workforce that year? Can you then compare that to a year where they experienced record losses, and also show me the size of their workforce that year?

Then we'll talk.

benefits were agreed upon at the time of contract negotiations. the UAW agreed to buyouts and plant closings to keep their benefits so dont think it came for nothing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those "Unions are the devil" people. The UAW is certainly doing some things to help in the present time.

There are too many points here and you are misinterpreting my comments I think.



GM didn't OFFER all the benefits it now provides it's workforce, the UAW pulled for them. If the union didn't ask, it wouldn't get. So sure you could argue that "well GM agreed to the deals" but if they didn't, tell me where they'd be now? Nonexistent, that's where.



See you say things like this alot, but what's your point? I don't disagree here. But you may be misinterpreting a loss in market share as a direct corrolation to a loss in effectiveness. You can't assert that it's that clean cut. As GM's market share has been on the decline, so has the size of it's competitors. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.



Duh. But again, you can't claim this to be a direct relation. It's not. There are just too many factors involved.



Here's a good point to look at.

GM has been forced to sell cars at a loss because of it's overhead, because of overloaded inventories, and because of fierce competition. However the only one of those reason that can be blamed on its own for the per-vehicle loss figures is overhead. Yeah they had to discount cars forcing them to lose EVEN MORE money...note that I said EVEN MORE...because the $800-and-some-odd dollar figure is based on MSRP, not discounts. So they were losing this money per vehicle BEFORE any of those discounts you speak of...and THAT, my friend, is why it's largely due to the UAW and the generous compensatory packages they forced.




Again, you are not considering all the factors. Can you show me a year in which they made record profits, and also show me the size of their workforce that year? Can you then compare that to a year where they experienced record losses, and also show me the size of their workforce that year?

Then we'll talk.



Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those "Unions are the devil" people. The UAW is certainly doing some things to help in the present time.


what does the UAW asking for benefits have to do with anything? do you think they shouldnt have any?

youre incorrect. companies like toyota and honda have grown considerably in NA. thats obvious. you even said in the same paragrah where you said its competitors got smaller.

GM had half of the market in the 50s and had a much larger workforce. yes, ive considered all the factors. theyve emliminted about 100-200k jobs in NA in the last 10 yrs due to lagging sales. ive provided proof so stop asking me stuff and start giving me some. :jest:


all of GMs problems come from lost marketshare and slow sales. employee benefits arent a direct cause of GM problems. theyre a result from poor sales. they can cut and cut but if sales dont pick up theyre finished. :(

they could eliminate benefits and it still wouldnt save them.

employee benefits arent a direct cause of GM problems. theyre a result from poor sales. they can cut and cut but if sales dont pick up theyre finished. :(

they could eliminate benefits and it still wouldnt save them.

This may be true, but, the Nippon "big three" NEVER had to, and NEVER will have to pay benefits on the level that GM has had to (for WHATEVER/WHOMEVER'S reason/fault) for the last 60+ years. GM could produce vehicles with 10x the quality and value of your imports/import nameplates, sell 3x as many, and STILL be hurting in the profit dept. as compared to them. It is as "unfair" an advantage as the trade laws imbalence, and dumping, in Japan, Inc.'s favor!! :mad:

what does the UAW asking for benefits have to do with anything? do you think they shouldnt have any?

Nope, not at all. These contracts were set up in a different time by different people. They simply need to be updated to reflect the reality of the new world market.

youre incorrect. companies like toyota and honda have grown considerably in NA. thats obvious. you even said in the same paragrah where you said its competitors got smaller.

True. That was a typo. Your comment made no sense until I reread mine. What I meant to say was:

"As GM's market share has been on the decline, the size of it's competitors has been on the rise. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.

Notice how the rest of my comment actually makes sense now. Sorry about that.

i've provided proof so stop asking me stuff and start giving me some.

Proof? Where? All you've given is your assertions and a bunch of articles that make only a passing mention of the UAW.


all of GMs problems come from lost marketshare and slow sales. employee benefits arent a direct cause of GM problems. theyre a result from poor sales. they can cut and cut but if sales dont pick up theyre finished.

Wrong. Due to another simple capital formula. To put it as simple as it can possibly be put...

If you are losing money, that means your total costs are higher than your total revenue.

You can then remedy the situation by increasing revenue (through better sales), or decreasing costs.

Therefore, if you "cut and cut" to the point where your costs are lower than your revenue (assuming you do not affect production numbers while "cutting"), you will be making money without actually increasing sales.

they could eliminate benefits and it still wouldnt save them.

With compensatory payments being about 60% of GM's annual total costs, it seems pretty obvious to me that if they eliminated those payments altogether, it would not only save them, but give them a pile of cash at the end of the year.

Nope, not at all. These contracts were set up in a different time by different people. They simply need to be updated to reflect the reality of the new world market.



True. That was a typo. Your comment made no sense until I reread mine. What I meant to say was:

"As GM's market share has been on the decline, the size of it's competitors has been on the rise. Companies that were once limited production imports are now full scale contenders. You can't compare today's market to that of even ten years ago. It's changed that much.

Notice how the rest of my comment actually makes sense now. Sorry about that.



Proof? Where? All you've given is your assertions and a bunch of articles that make only a passing mention of the UAW.




Wrong. Due to another simple capital formula. To put it as simple as it can possibly be put...

If you are losing money, that means your total costs are higher than your total revenue.

You can then remedy the situation by increasing revenue (through better sales), or decreasing costs.

Therefore, if you "cut and cut" to the point where your costs are lower than your revenue (assuming you do not affect production numbers while "cutting"), you will be making money without actually increasing sales.



With compensatory payments being about 60% of GM's annual total costs, it seems pretty obvious to me that if they eliminated those payments altogether, it would not only save them, but give them a pile of cash at the end of the year.


i'll try to simply this.


GMs marketshare has got smaller as companies like toyotas have got bigger. i already showed this. the reason is because they made subpar vehicles compared to toyota and honda which i also provided a link for.


the reason for GMs problems is poor mngt. for decades. the UAW never told them to make poor quality vehicles. they never told them to make numerous cars with the same name and not change body styles for a decade.

the fact they have trouble paying for these benefits is because of this. its not effecting price since GM vehicles appear to be priced competitively with imports.

GM also has suppliers to pay so if you want you can blame them too for losing money but its an expense like benefits are and they agreed to pay for them just like they agreed to pay their suppliers.

they dont make a profit because theyre not selling. again,nothing to do with thre cost of benefits. people will pay for a quality vehicle so its just a matter of doing that and GM will be better again. but its going to take awhile.




contract talks will begin next yr. and GM and the UAW will work things out.

This may be true, but, the Nippon "big three" NEVER had to, and NEVER will have to pay benefits on the level that GM has had to (for WHATEVER/WHOMEVER'S reason/fault) for the last 60+ years. GM could produce vehicles with 10x the quality and value of your imports/import nameplates, sell 3x as many, and STILL be hurting in the profit dept. as compared to them. It is as "unfair" an advantage as the trade laws imbalence, and dumping, in Japan, Inc.'s favor!! :mad:


they have a major unfair advantage. especialy since their govt. invests in their companies so they have more money for R&D.

more facts showing declining sales to imports by the big three. very sad. :(

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11242

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6929152


read the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

i'll try to simply this.


GMs marketshare has got smaller as companies like toyotas have got bigger. i already showed this. the reason is because they made subpar vehicles compared to toyota and honda which i also provided a link for.


the reason for GMs problems is poor mngt. for decades. the UAW never told them to make poor quality vehicles. they never told them to make numerous cars with the same name and not change body styles for a decade.

the fact they have trouble paying for these benefits is because of this. its not effecting price since GM vehicles appear to be priced competitively with imports.

GM also has suppliers to pay so if you want you can blame them too for losing money but its an expense like benefits are and they agreed to pay for them just like they agreed to pay their suppliers.

they dont make a profit because theyre not selling. again,nothing to do with thre cost of benefits. people will pay for a quality vehicle so its just a matter of doing that and GM will be better again. but its going to take awhile.

contract talks will begin next yr. and GM and the UAW will work things out.

We are not getting anywhere with this. To go any further would just be going in circles. We seem to agree on almost all points, except for the primary cause of GM's problems. I have given the simplest, most obvious proof that GM's biggest problem is their compensatory liabilities. Despite this, you still disagree, so this leads me to believe that at this point we are just wasting each other's time.

GM's sales are up right now, they have 5 of the best selling vehicles on the planet. You assert still that sales is the problem, I disgree and assert that their real problem is their costs. I suppose we'll just have to leave it at that.

We are not getting anywhere with this. To go any further would just be going in circles. We seem to agree on almost all points, except for the primary cause of GM's problems. I have given the simplest, most obvious proof that GM's biggest problem is their compensatory liabilities. Despite this, you still disagree, so this leads me to believe that at this point we are just wasting each other's time.

GM's sales are up right now, they have 5 of the best selling vehicles on the planet. You assert still that sales is the problem, I disgree and assert that their real problem is their costs. I suppose we'll just have to leave it at that.

despite me showing you proof this isnt going anywhere. sales might be up now but they werent causing profits to plummet. youre talking short term. im talking marketshare loss for decades which is fact.


as you lose money obviously expenses become a problem. its still simple. increase sales at a profit and sustain that and their problems will go away. its not that easy though.

this isnt complete but show me where you see 5 GM vehicles.

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4023925

once again 5 good selling vehicles isnt enough to maintain a huge corp. like GM. they need healthy sales in every category or they'll be more layoffs. :(

Last I read, GM is the top 3 in China.

They are still #1 in the US as well but the race is much closer here. I don't beleive Toyota has overtaken them yet based on units sold for '06, but the gap is small.

The sales gap is still HUGE....its profits that GM has been improving. They also HAVE to do something about the union situation to compete profit wise with Yota....

despite me showing you proof this isnt going anywhere. sales might be up now but they werent causing profits to plummet. youre talking short term. im talking marketshare loss for decades which is fact.

Proof? Where did you hide it? I'm still waiting for some.

Marketshare loss is not even a factor right now. Their primary concern is trimming down the company and making an efficient operation. THEN they will take a serious look at how to improve sales!

increase sales at a profit and sustain that and their problems will go away.

Alright here's proof that you don't know what you are talking about. You just said "increase sales at a profit" THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS WHOLE DAMN TIME!!!!!!!!!!! They need to profit from their vehicles first before they can worry about increasing sales.

There, you said it yourself!!! Now drop it!!!

once again 5 good selling vehicles isnt enough to maintain a huge corp. like GM. they need healthy sales in every category or they'll be more layoffs. :(

No, they are 5 BEST SELLING vehicles.

Silverado
Impala
Cobalt
G6
Tahoe

Whether it's enough or not is irrelevant. My point was simply that sales is not their number one problem. It's hard to argue that this doesn't prove that.

The sales gap is still HUGE....its profits that GM has been improving. They also HAVE to do something about the union situation to compete profit wise with Yota....

GM has already started gaining marketshare back. They are up 2% over last year. So many people say that Toyota wants to be number one. That couldn't be further from the truth. Hiroshi Okuda has already gone on record more than once saying he has no intention of taking Toyota to the number one spot. If it happens, so be it, but it's not a goal of theirs. They simply want to maintain quality product at the current sales level.

Marketshare loss is not even a factor right now. Their primary concern is trimming down the company and making an efficient operation. THEN they will take a serious look at how to improve sales!
Right or wrong, 2 of my training courses this year were solely focused upon increasing market share. Specifically in the womens and minorities sectors.

I'm a parts guy, and even we had to take these courses to be certified for 2007.

Right or wrong, 2 of my training courses this year were solely focused upon increasing market share. Specifically in the womens and minorities sectors.

I'm a parts guy, and even we had to take these courses to be certified for 2007.


Sure, but their marketshare is already on the rise.

As for the women's sector, it seems to me that the G6 can take care of that single handedly. Just about every girl I know would give up half their wardrobe to own one. That says alot.

Sure, but their marketshare is already on the rise.

As for the women's sector, it seems to me that the G6 can take care of that single handedly. Just about every girl I know would give up half their wardrobe to own one. That says alot.


show me where their market share is on the rise. its not. its shrinking. there you go again just making things up. :D


ive provided adequate proof disclaiming most of your statements but you refuse to accept it.

Proof? Where did you hide it? I'm still waiting for some.

Marketshare loss is not even a factor right now. Their primary concern is trimming down the company and making an efficient operation. THEN they will take a serious look at how to improve sales!



Alright here's proof that you don't know what you are talking about. You just said "increase sales at a profit" THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS WHOLE DAMN TIME!!!!!!!!!!! They need to profit from their vehicles first before they can worry about increasing sales.

There, you said it yourself!!! Now drop it!!!



No, they are 5 BEST SELLING vehicles.

Silverado
Impala
Cobalt
G6
Tahoe

Whether it's enough or not is irrelevant. My point was simply that sales is not their number one problem. It's hard to argue that this doesn't prove that.


there you go again. you said they have the five best selling vehicles on the planet. do you not comprehend your own posts? do you read my links or do you just keep going on and on making things up? :eek2:

what youve been trying to prove and failing is that GM is not selling vehicles at a profit because of health costs and i disproved that. youre the one arguing with yourself over they need to make a profit. no shit. they need to BOTH increase sales and profits. do you understand now? :jest:

Right or wrong, 2 of my training courses this year were solely focused upon increasing market share. Specifically in the womens and minorities sectors.

I'm a parts guy, and even we had to take these courses to be certified for 2007.


dont bother he knows it all. :D
as of oct. of this yr. GMs marketshare was just over 25%. last yr. it was over 30% due to offering employee discounts to everyone.


http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/earnings/

Once again, here's some more proof that you will soon say I failed to show...

show me where their market share is on the rise. its not. its shrinking. there you go again just making things up.

http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/earnings/hist_earnings/01_q4/index.html

http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/bamw/bamw-061129-auto.shtml
That one's a long one so i'll give you the cheat: check the 12th paragraph.

there you go again. you said they have the five best selling vehicles on the planet. do you not comprehend your own posts? do you read my links or do you just keep going on and on making things up?

You should consider your own ineptitude before questioning my comprehension.

I said exactly these words, no more, no less: "5 BEST SELLING VEHICLES". Notice the absence of the word "THE" in the beginning of that statement and the words "IN THE WORLD" at the end. Sure they are just a few words alone, but together, they make a huge difference.

But to that end, i'll do you one better and present that, in addition to having those five in the "Best Sellers" per-class list, they also have 5 vehicles in the best sellers IN THE WORLD list:

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/115851/article.html

what youve been trying to prove and failing is that GM is not selling vehicles at a profit because of health costs and i disproved that. youre the one arguing with yourself over they need to make a profit. no shit. they need to BOTH increase sales and profits. do you understand now?

Failing? I've asked you several times to show me proof and you have yet to do so. Sure you've presented a few opinion articles that make a passing mention of the UAW, but if that's what you call proof then you can't expect to gain respect in a discussion such as this.

To satisfy me sir, you need to present real, objective, non-opinion based proof. I'm still waiting for even one shred from you.

dont bother he knows it all.

Oh this is even better. Can't come up with something objective and useful? Try a personal jab. Yeah that's going to make you look real competent.

Once again, here's some more proof that you will soon say I failed to show...



http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/earnings/hist_earnings/01_q4/index.html

http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/bamw/bamw-061129-auto.shtml
That one's a long one so i'll give you the cheat: check the 12th paragraph.



You should consider your own ineptitude before questioning my comprehension.

I said exactly these words, no more, no less: "5 BEST SELLING VEHICLES". Notice the absence of the word "THE" in the beginning of that statement and the words "IN THE WORLD" at the end. Sure they are just a few words alone, but together, they make a huge difference.

But to that end, i'll do you one better and present that, in addition to having those five in the "Best Sellers" per-class list, they also have 5 vehicles in the best sellers IN THE WORLD list:

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/115851/article.html



Failing? I've asked you several times to show me proof and you have yet to do so. Sure you've presented a few opinion articles that make a passing mention of the UAW, but if that's what you call proof then you can't expect to gain respect in a discussion such as this.

To satisfy me sir, you need to present real, objective, non-opinion based proof. I'm still waiting for even one shred from you.



Oh this is even better. Can't come up with something objective and useful? Try a personal jab. Yeah that's going to make you look real competent.

GMs marketshare spikes occasonally but as i showed you its been declining for decades so you lose again. :D it was over 30% last yr and its been down as low as 25%. it went up a little due to a good november but its still down from last yr. i actually hope it goes up and stays there.

that list you showed me was from 2005. i posted the 2006 best sellers list which had 3 GM vehicles but like the rest of my links you refuse to accept them. its hilarious you deny saying "GM has the 5 best selling vehicles on the planet"when you know damn well thats what you said. but i need to earn respect. :jest:


funny how youve posted nothing but yet youre claiming i havent. that one remark was just a joke but im not the incompetent one here.

please just prove to me that worker benefits are the only reason GM loses money on every car they sell. theres no other reason right? :jest:

if you read the top of that link for GMs 2001 earnings youd notice its been revised. earnings were over stated.





https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://search.yahoo.com/search/msie;_ylt=A0geurD.lY1FtV4BkLilzbkF?p=GM+revises+it s+earnings+for+2001&ei=UTF-8&location=http%3A//www.ft.com/cms/s/8214f366-51c8-11da-9ca0-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=ae075534-75f2-11d9-89f9-0003ba5a9905.html

GMs marketshare spikes occasonally but as i showed you its been declining for decades so you lose again. :D it was over 30% last yr and its been down as low as 25%. it went up a little due to a good november but its still down from last yr. i actually hope it goes up and stays there.

This is not what I was talking about. I simply said GM's marketshare is up over what it was last year. Now you're just putting words in my mouth to save your own ass.

that list you showed me was from 2005. i posted the 2006 best sellers list which had 3 GM vehicles but like the rest of my links you refuse to accept them.

First, 2006 is not over yet. I'll consider 2006 results when they are complete.

Second, I never specified that they were 2006 rankings. Obviously it would be ludicrous to use rankings from 2002 and claim them valid in this argument, but 2005 is the latest complete year available, so it's truly the only dependable data.

Again, putting words in my mouth. Getting desperate are we?

its hilarious you deny saying "GM has the 5 best selling vehicles on the planet"when you know damn well thats what you said. but i need to earn respect.

Well i'm glad you are entertained.

Please quote where I said "GM has the 5 best selling vehicles on the planet"

Until you can prove one shred of what you say, don't waste my time.

funny how youve posted nothing but yet youre claiming i havent. that one remark was just a joke but im not the incompetent one here.

Have you actually been reading my posts or just clicking the QUOTE button? The latter would certainly explain alot. In fact, it might be a good escape plan for you since you could blame your ignorant ramblings on a simple oversight and not general incompetence.

please just prove to me that worker benefits are the only reason GM loses money on every car they sell. theres no other reason right?

Why?

First - I wouldn't argue that worker benefits ARE the ONLY reason GM loses money on every car they sell.

Second - Even if I did, you would just conveniently overlook it and claim I never posted any proof. That would only be the third time you've done it in this discussion.

GMs marketshare in june 2005.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_June_17/ai_n13819141


about a yr later its at 25% despite it going up each quarter in 06. at least the first three quarters.


http://www.thegmsource.com/index.php?categoryid=8&p2_articleid=86


it seems when they offer discounts or incentives or whatever it goes up temporarily then it drops as they try to reduce or drop them. :(

GMs marketshare in june 2005.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_June_17/ai_n13819141


about a yr later its at 25% despite it going up each quarter in 06. at least the first three quarters.


http://www.thegmsource.com/index.php?categoryid=8&p2_articleid=86


it seems when they offer discounts or incentives or whatever it goes up temporarily then it drops as they try to reduce or drop them. :(

But again, this is not what I was arguing.

See I think you just misunderstand my disagreement. Take a look at total 2006 Market share once 2006 is over, it will make more sense.

We are not getting anywhere with this. To go any further would just be going in circles. We seem to agree on almost all points, except for the primary cause of GM's problems. I have given the simplest, most obvious proof that GM's biggest problem is their compensatory liabilities. Despite this, you still disagree, so this leads me to believe that at this point we are just wasting each other's time.

GM's sales are up right now, they have 5 of the best selling vehicles on the planet. You assert still that sales is the problem, I disgree and assert that their real problem is their costs. I suppose we'll just have to leave it at that.


can you read your last paragraph? five selling best vehicles...


stop wasting my time. :jest:

can you read your last paragraph? five selling best vehicles...

Quote completely or not at all...what I actually said, and yes it's right there in the quote you posted...

"...5 OF the best selling vehicles..."

stop wasting my time.

You're the one who keeps coming back!

This is not what I was talking about. I simply said GM's marketshare is up over what it was last year. Now you're just putting words in my mouth to save your own ass.



First, 2006 is not over yet. I'll consider 2006 results when they are complete.

Second, I never specified that they were 2006 rankings. Obviously it would be ludicrous to use rankings from 2002 and claim them valid in this argument, but 2005 is the latest complete year available, so it's truly the only dependable data.

Again, putting words in my mouth. Getting desperate are we?



Well i'm glad you are entertained.

Please quote where I said "GM has the 5 best selling vehicles on the planet"

Until you can prove one shred of what you say, don't waste my time.



Have you actually been reading my posts or just clicking the QUOTE button? The latter would certainly explain alot. In fact, it might be a good escape plan for you since you could blame your ignorant ramblings on a simple oversight and not general incompetence.



Why?

First - I wouldn't argue that worker benefits ARE the ONLY reason GM loses money on every car they sell.

Second - Even if I did, you would just conveniently overlook it and claim I never posted any proof. That would only be the third time you've done it in this discussion.

market share is not up. i just showed you.

nice try posting 2005 sales and then posting it as fact when you dont know what 2006 sales are yet.

yes,i overlook things just like you do. :jest:

Quote completely or not at all...what I actually said, and yes it's right there in the quote you posted...

"...5 OF the best selling vehicles..."



You're the one who keeps coming back!

give it up. i just showed you your statement.


i find this fun. i dont take it serious. :jest:

market share is not up. i just showed you.

Yeah sure, you actually proved my point. You said yourself Market share has gone up each quarter in 2006, then use incomplete data to claim that it's down overall in 2006.

nice try posting 2005 sales and then posting it as fact when you dont know what 2006 sales are yet.

What exactly are you saying here? I already said 2006 is not yet complete and therefore cannot be used for reliable data, so 2005 is the most recent reliable year to base arguments on. So what's your point?

regardless of marketshare spiking ocasionally i proved a decline over a long period of time. no im not happy about it.

give it up. i just showed you your statement.

...and still managed to misquote it.


i find this fun. i dont take it serious.

Well good. I would certainly hate to think that someone could put forth a truly serious effort and come up so short.

Yeah sure, you actually proved my point. You said yourself Market share has gone up each quarter in 2006, then use incomplete data to claim that it's down overall in 2006.



What exactly are you saying here? I already said 2006 is not yet complete and therefore cannot be used for reliable data, so 2005 is the most recent reliable year to base arguments on. So what's your point?


i said despite it going up it was still down from a yr ago. im comparing periods of time to show a pattern.why is this hard to get?

regardless of marketshare spiking ocasionally i proved a decline over a long period of time. no im not happy about it.

To "prove" something, you first need complete data, which doesn't yet exist for 2006. I have successfully showed that market share is THUS FAR up for 2006. I never said that once complete data is in that can't change.

...and still managed to misquote it.




Well good. I would certainly hate to think that someone could put forth a truly serious effort and come up so short.


yes you certainly are. :jest:

i didnt misquote anything. did you see the three dots? just admit you said that and move on.

To "prove" something, you first need complete data, which doesn't yet exist for 2006. I have successfully showed that market share is THUS FAR up for 2006. I never said that once complete data is in that can't change.


WTF. ive been saying its been declining for yrs. this is what ive been trying to show you.

ive been saying its been declining for yrs.

Again, never part of my argument. We don't disagree here.

yes you certainly are. :jest:

WOW.

GREAT JOB :bang:

WOW.

GREAT JOB :bang:


WOW, great answer. :jest:

I think it's safe to say this discussion is over. I'm going for a ride. :drive:

I think it's safe to say this discussion is over. I'm going for a ride. :drive:


ok but one more thing. heres complete data so now you can admit you were wrong once again. :D


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/99960/top_10_selling_automobiles_for_2006.html

five best selling vehicles on the planet.did i quote you corectly now? :eek2: :) :jest:

ok but one more thing. heres complete data so now you can admit you were wrong once again. :D


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/99960/top_10_selling_automobiles_for_2006.html

five best selling vehicles on the planet.did i quote you corectly now? :eek2: :) :jest:

Yes, you quoted me correctly, and then proceeded to forget about half of what you learned in this thread.

2006 IS NOT YET OVER, don't present 2006 figures to me as fact until it is.

Yes, you quoted me correctly, and then proceeded to forget about half of what you learned in this thread.

2006 IS NOT YET OVER, don't present 2006 figures to me as fact until it is.


youre right. :( :bang: hold on.

i thought sales for MY were calculated at the end of august? doesnt sept. start a new MY? i think thats an accurate link.

youre right. :( :bang: hold on.

i thought sales for MY were calculated at the end of august? doesnt sept. start a new MY? i think thats an accurate link.

Ah see there's where the discrepancy is. I now understand what you were talking about. I'm going by vehicle sales and marketshare in 2006...not MY 2006. So my figures would include some 2007's.

Ah see there's where the discrepancy is. I now understand what you were talking about. I'm going by vehicle sales and marketshare in 2006...not MY 2006. So my figures would include some 2007's.


marketshare is what it is.


as far as sales by MY i still think that link is correct since the MY ends in aug. i think any leftovers are counted as sales in the next MY.

marketshare is what it is.


as far as sales by MY i still think that link is correct since the MY ends in aug. i think any leftovers are counted as sales in the next MY.

Sales figures are generally calculated by fiscal year not MY. Since MY's are different depending on the class of the vehicle, and even vary from one manufacturer to another, it would be hard to keep useful statistics by MY.

whats confusing is that link says top sellers for 2006 then it says sales through august. and yet its dated dec.15th. then why are three months not included?

yes, it goes from jan to dec. :( :jest:

heres a little more recent sales list.


http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com: 20061101:MTFH66845_2006-11-01_22-15-01_N01428954&type=comktNews&rpc=44




the top 10 appear unchanged.

There needs to be some heavy quotaing and taxing placed on imported steel/aluminum/corrugated and the like. American companies involved in these industries are all being driven out of business because of the foreign markets. Hell, if you look at the northwest here, we've shut down more Georgia pacifics, American Steel & Aluminum, Freightliners, etc than I can count at the moment. Really, I see the same foreign goods that are flooding our markets significantly hurting our auto industry--It's all general manufacturing.

I here economists go on and on about the benefits of an open, globally free economy between all countries. I'm sorry, but that really only benefits countries who have LESS REGULATION that ours. The rules and standards that companies must follow in order to conduct business here far exceed most other countries--namely Japan and China (AND THIS IS OBVIOUS). The cost to operate simply to not equate between countries.

This foriegn dumping is really hurting more than general manufacturing too. Take the Fruit's and Vegetable industry for example. Juice companies like Langers who import their berries from South America are making huge hits to the American and Canadian growers here who sell to Ocean Spray. Obviously the land, water, growing, and operating regulations for the American and Canadian growers are significantly more regulated (thus more costly) than the Foriegn suppliers. These expenses just drive up the cost of the berries and the juices you enjoy. The biggest problem is Ocean Spray and the like must compete with the froeign companies/suppliers and need to price their juices comparably. What this has done is lowered the price Ocean Spray and the like are willing to pay for berries from the American and Canadian growers--forcing most out of the business due to the already high costs of operation.

There are thousands more examples to use to illustrate this point.