Import owners are to blame for the recession

General Motors Corp. had its stock reduced to “underperform” by Credit
Suisse Group AG on concern that concessions to win a U.S. bailout will
mean the “complete or near-complete elimination” of existing GM
equity.

The 12-month price target on GM, the largest U.S. automaker, was cut
in half to $1 today by Christopher Ceraso, a Credit Suisse analyst in
New York. Ceraso previously rated GM shares “neutral.”

Ceraso’s report comes three days after President George W. Bush’s
announcement that Detroit-based GM and Chrysler LLC will get $13.4
billion in emergency loans in exchange for substantially restructuring
their businesses.

“Over the next two months, as bondholders, union representatives and
company management meet to hammer out concessions, we think it will
become increasingly clear that the enormous sacrifice of value on the
part of the union and bondholders will require the complete or near-
complete elimination of the existing GM equity,” Ceraso wrote.

Additionally, the U.S. government will claim as much as 20 percent of
GM’s equity value, Ceraso said.

Itay Michaeli, an analyst at Citigroup Global Markets Inc., widened
his full-year loss estimate for GM to $29.09 a share from $28.92. GM
will post losses of $26.46 a share next year and probably go bancrupt,
Michaeli said in a note to clients.

GM fell 50 cents, or 11 percent, to $3.99 at 9:50 a.m. in New York
Stock Exchange composite trading. Before today, the stock lost 82
percent this year.

DUH You are WRONG, again Why do you keep talking so stupid? Ford did
not take federal loans and Toyota sales have been dropping at a greater rate
than Ford sales. F150 sales are up and Tundra sales are in the dumper
LOL


"Gosi" > wrote in message
...
On 22 Dec, 15:03, me > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:27:48 -0500, "Derek Gee"
>
> > wrote:
> >> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
> >> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
> >> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.
>
> >Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981!
>
> The Japanese started just after WWII ended. Ford was one of the
> companies that spurned his ideas back then and for decades. They were
> 30 years behind the Japanese, joining a program that only pays off
> long term. (But way ahead of GM, who still doesn't get it).
>

This is exactly why they are dead today.
Took amazingly long time but it is good fun to see them fall now
because of their stupid arrogance

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:59:59 -0600, CharlesTheCurmudgeon cast forth these
pearls of wisdom...:


> And what's worse, walking into most American dealerships, most buyers feel
> like they ought to be wearing a full body condom anyway. Dealers are going
> to steer them to packages they don't really want. I had a dealer try to
> steer me from the 4 cylinder manual up to the V6 on the S-10 I bouight. I
> could just barely afford the 10 grand for the 4. The way he was 'stacking'
> options, it would have cost me 20 grand..
>

Bull****. He can't "steer" you to anything you aren't showing interest in.
You're just ****ed because you couldn't afford what you really wanted.


--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:59:59 -0600, CharlesTheCurmudgeon cast forth these
> pearls of wisdom...:
>
>
>> And what's worse, walking into most American dealerships, most buyers
>> feel
>> like they ought to be wearing a full body condom anyway. Dealers are
>> going
>> to steer them to packages they don't really want. I had a dealer try to
>> steer me from the 4 cylinder manual up to the V6 on the S-10 I bouight.
>> I
>> could just barely afford the 10 grand for the 4. The way he was
>> 'stacking'
>> options, it would have cost me 20 grand..
>>
>
> Bull****. He can't "steer" you to anything you aren't showing interest
> in.
> You're just ****ed because you couldn't afford what you really wanted.
>
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
>

Bull****. The dealer wasn't smart enough to present something above the 10
grand I was willing to spend. The only option between the 10 and 20 was 11
grand, which means I would have gotten an automatic with the 4 cylinder
engine, is all. I guess he thought he could hook me for 20 grand. He
thought wrong. There was nothing inbetween. If you got the short cab, you
got it with the 4. If you wanted a V-6, you had to buy the extended cab,
and a bunch of other options. I might have been interested in a V-6 if the
upgrade hadn't been such a big jump. Frankly the V-6 options on the S-10
weren't that good that year anyway. The smallest V-6 was twice the size of
the 4 and there was no 'intermediate' size engine choice. The 'twice as
big' V-6 only had a little more horsepower than the 4, too.

And I remembered something about the S-10 that I forgot. If you left the
dome light on for 8 hours, your battery was dead, especially in winter. I
had to get it jumped once because of that feature.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon
Never again an American piece of crap.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:43:20 -0600, CharlesTheCurmudgeon cast forth these
pearls of wisdom...:

> "Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:59:59 -0600, CharlesTheCurmudgeon cast forth these
>> pearls of wisdom...:
>>
>>
>>> And what's worse, walking into most American dealerships, most buyers
>>> feel
>>> like they ought to be wearing a full body condom anyway. Dealers are
>>> going
>>> to steer them to packages they don't really want. I had a dealer try to
>>> steer me from the 4 cylinder manual up to the V6 on the S-10 I bouight.
>>> I
>>> could just barely afford the 10 grand for the 4. The way he was
>>> 'stacking'
>>> options, it would have cost me 20 grand..
>>>
>>
>> Bull****. He can't "steer" you to anything you aren't showing interest
>> in.
>> You're just ****ed because you couldn't afford what you really wanted.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>>
>
> Bull****. The dealer wasn't smart enough to present something above the 10
> grand I was willing to spend.

So what is it? He tried to steer you where you didn't want to go, or he
wasn't smart enough to present something above the 10 grand you were
willing to spend?

--

-Mike-

"CharlesTheCurmudgeon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:59:59 -0600, CharlesTheCurmudgeon cast forth these
>> pearls of wisdom...:
>>
>>
>>> And what's worse, walking into most American dealerships, most buyers
>>> feel
>>> like they ought to be wearing a full body condom anyway. Dealers are
>>> going
>>> to steer them to packages they don't really want. I had a dealer try to
>>> steer me from the 4 cylinder manual up to the V6 on the S-10 I bouight.
>>> I
>>> could just barely afford the 10 grand for the 4. The way he was
>>> 'stacking'
>>> options, it would have cost me 20 grand..
>>>
>>
>> Bull****. He can't "steer" you to anything you aren't showing interest
>> in.
>> You're just ****ed because you couldn't afford what you really wanted.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>>
>
> Bull****. The dealer wasn't smart enough to present something above the
> 10 grand I was willing to spend. The only option between the 10 and 20
> was 11 grand, which means I would have gotten an automatic with the 4
> cylinder engine, is all. I guess he thought he could hook me for 20
> grand. He thought wrong. There was nothing inbetween. If you got the
> short cab, you got it with the 4. If you wanted a V-6, you had to buy the
> extended cab, and a bunch of other options. I might have been interested
> in a V-6 if the upgrade hadn't been such a big jump. Frankly the V-6
> options on the S-10 weren't that good that year anyway. The smallest V-6
> was twice the size of the 4 and there was no 'intermediate' size engine
> choice. The 'twice as big' V-6 only had a little more horsepower than the
> 4, too.
>
> And I remembered something about the S-10 that I forgot. If you left the
> dome light on for 8 hours, your battery was dead, especially in winter. I
> had to get it jumped once because of that feature.

If you're stupid enough to leave the lights on (any of them) when you leave
the vehicle, you get what you deserve. And, in this case, you deserve a dead
battery. Thank God no ricer EVER had a battery die from the lights being
left on. The Japanese economy would be in the boat with us. Oh wait, it
pretty much is. . .

>
> Sir Charles the Curmudgeon
> Never again an American piece of crap.
>

> wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:43:20 -0600, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:59:59 -0600, CharlesTheCurmudgeon cast forth
>>> these
>>> pearls of wisdom...:
>>>
>>>
>>>> And what's worse, walking into most American dealerships, most buyers
>>>> feel
>>>> like they ought to be wearing a full body condom anyway. Dealers are
>>>> going
>>>> to steer them to packages they don't really want. I had a dealer try
>>>> to
>>>> steer me from the 4 cylinder manual up to the V6 on the S-10 I bouight.
>>>> I
>>>> could just barely afford the 10 grand for the 4. The way he was
>>>> 'stacking'
>>>> options, it would have cost me 20 grand..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bull****. He can't "steer" you to anything you aren't showing interest
>>> in.
>>> You're just ****ed because you couldn't afford what you really wanted.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -Mike-
>>>
>>
>>Bull****. The dealer wasn't smart enough to present something above the
>>10
>>grand I was willing to spend. The only option between the 10 and 20 was
>>11
>>grand, which means I would have gotten an automatic with the 4 cylinder
>>engine, is all. I guess he thought he could hook me for 20 grand. He
>>thought wrong. There was nothing inbetween. If you got the short cab,
>>you
>>got it with the 4. If you wanted a V-6, you had to buy the extended cab,
>>and a bunch of other options. I might have been interested in a V-6 if
>>the
>>upgrade hadn't been such a big jump. Frankly the V-6 options on the S-10
>>weren't that good that year anyway. The smallest V-6 was twice the size
>>of
>>the 4 and there was no 'intermediate' size engine choice. The 'twice as
>>big' V-6 only had a little more horsepower than the 4, too.
>
> The 4.3 V6 was NOT a great upgrade over the Iron Duke based 4 (2.5
> litre at that point, I believe)

In 1995 there were 3 engine choices.

2.2 litre (134 ci, not even as big as the old Iron Duke 4 in the old Chevy
II's and the panel vans in the 60's) 122 hp.

4.3 litre V6 (262 ci) 154 hp

4.3 liter Vortech 192? hp



It only got a little more than 40 more horsepower and between the
horsepower, the gearing and the extra weight, it got poorer gas mileage and
I don't see where it would perform any better. So if I'd have spent the
$10,000 more, what would I have got for my money?

A longer cab.
A nicer trim package (big deal)
An automatic transmission (I really wanted a manual anyway.)

I can't see where it would have been worth my while in 1994 to spend that
kind of money to get that poor of a return. That is part of the reason GM
expecially is in such deep doo-doo. Despite the fact they build Toyota
Corollas at the GM Freemont plant right alongside Geo Prisms (now Chevy
Prisms, I think) a lot of that knowledge didn't percolate up to the levels
that make a long-term difference in a company.

Fazda had a good 4 cylinder extended cab for 13,6 that year. (It said Mazda
on the outside, but the dealers always had to look up the parts in the Ford
catalogue for some reason, so we refered to it as a Fazda.) I know a guy
that bought the 4000 'Ranger' that year, and between the reving and the
gearing, it actually got as good a mileage, driven conservatively as the
2300 driven with a heavy foot. And I think even the 4000 sold for under
20,000 unless you really loaded it up. I was avoiding Fazda that year
because of the parts problem. Some of the dealers used the wrong parts or
didn't bother to check that they were using the catologue for that month
(i.e. up thru the previous month of the model year, different parts were
used.)

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

On Dec 22, 4:12*pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> DUH You are WRONG, again * Why do you keep talking so stupid? * *Ford did
> not take federal loans and Toyota sales have been dropping at a greater rate
> than Ford sales. * F150 sales are up and Tundra sales are in the dumper
> LOL

The market cap of Ford and GM is about $8 billion, *combined*. The
market cap of Toyota is over $90 billion.

What does that tell you?

Jeff
> "Gosi" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 22 Dec, 15:03, me > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:27:48 -0500, "Derek Gee"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
> > >> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
> > >> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.
>
> > >Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981!
>
> > The Japanese started just after WWII ended. Ford was one of the
> > companies that spurned his ideas back then and for decades. They were
> > 30 years behind the Japanese, joining a program that only pays off
> > long term. (But way ahead of GM, who still doesn't get it).
>
> This is exactly why they are dead today.
> Took amazingly long time but it is good fun to see them fall now
> because of their stupid arrogance

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:12:50 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

>DUH You are WRONG, again Why do you keep talking so stupid? Ford did
>not take federal loans and Toyota sales have been dropping at a greater rate
>than Ford sales. F150 sales are up and Tundra sales are in the dumper
>LOL

Mike, you are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to
your own facts.

"Sales of the F-150 pickup trucks, including the F-Series Super Duty
trucks made at Kentucky Truck Plant, also continued to slide in
November.

Ford sold 37,911 units, down 18.6 percent from November 2007, when it
sold 46,568 units. That is an 18.6 percent decline. Ford combines
F-150 truck sales with Super Duty sales for reporting purposes."

http://www.bizjournals.com/louisvill...1/daily22.html

Maybe Toyota will buy the pickup business from Ford and Jeep from
Chrysler. I can't even think of anything GM owns that Toyota or Honda
would want. The rest of the US auto industry is worth less than the
inventory rotting on dealer lots.








>
>
>"Gosi" > wrote in message
...
>On 22 Dec, 15:03, me > wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:27:48 -0500, "Derek Gee"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
>> >> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
>> >> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.
>>
>> >Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981!
>>
>> The Japanese started just after WWII ended. Ford was one of the
>> companies that spurned his ideas back then and for decades. They were
>> 30 years behind the Japanese, joining a program that only pays off
>> long term. (But way ahead of GM, who still doesn't get it).
>>
>
>This is exactly why they are dead today.
>Took amazingly long time but it is good fun to see them fall now
>because of their stupid arrogance
>

What I'm telling you is one third of Toyotas worldwide sales are in the US
and the greatest portion of its income is generated in the US. Toyota sales
are off more than Ford although Toyota will likely outsell GM worldwide, by
a few hundred thousand vehicles, when 2008 totals are released.

The Japanese economy is in far worse shape than the US or even Europe for
that matter. The Japanese government can no long keep the Yen under valued
and it will rise rapidly against the dollar. The interest rate in Japan is
at ZERO and has been for years. The only answer for their government is to
cut costs The Japanese government will no longer be able to continue to
subsides their industries and Toyota will begin to operate at a loss.

I'll bet it will start in the first quarter of '09 and you will see Toyota
laying off full time employees not only the hundreds of 'contract' employees
they have been laying off. I also believe the Tundra plant will be closed
or converted to build hybrids. The Tundra was Toyotas biggest mistake


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 22, 4:12 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> DUH You are WRONG, again Why do you keep talking so stupid? Ford did
> not take federal loans and Toyota sales have been dropping at a greater
> rate
> than Ford sales. F150 sales are up and Tundra sales are in the dumper
> LOL

The market cap of Ford and GM is about $8 billion, *combined*. The
market cap of Toyota is over $90 billion.

What does that tell you?

Jeff
> "Gosi" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 22 Dec, 15:03, me > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:27:48 -0500, "Derek Gee"
>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
> > >> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
> > >> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.
>
> > >Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981!
>
> > The Japanese started just after WWII ended. Ford was one of the
> > companies that spurned his ideas back then and for decades. They were
> > 30 years behind the Japanese, joining a program that only pays off
> > long term. (But way ahead of GM, who still doesn't get it).
>
> This is exactly why they are dead today.
> Took amazingly long time but it is good fun to see them fall now
> because of their stupid arrogance