Built like a Mercedes (?)

Roy wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:17:37 -0500, "Roy" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in message
.com...
>>>
>>>>No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take back
>>>>it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the EPA
>>>>being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
>>>
>>>How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
>>>hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the
>>>hell here can afford a pay cut?
>>
>>Which would you rather have: your pay cut, or your job cut?
>
>
>>A lot of Ford and GM workers are about to wish they had taken the pay
>>cut...
>>--
>
> You folks continue with the same mantra. Cut the workers wages. It is damn
> easy to say until it affects you. Also the same bs "it will be your job if
> you don't take a pay cut" The jobs will go anyway.
>
> Roy

Calling it a mantra does not make it an invalid point. The post you
originally responded to did not *only* mention pay cuts. It also
mentioned EPA regulations. You can't isolate any one point as a
cause/cure. Typically the same people who are the union protectionists
are also in favor of internal legislation and international agreements
that ultimately force jobs overseas. Both points have to be addressed
together. An open market eventually equalizes everything out - change
or die.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

at this risk of starting a further argument. im a proponet of alternative
fuels but i dont believe hydrogen or hybrid to be it. i believe we could use
bio fuels more readily (the distribution infastructure is already inplace)
and is practically a infanately renuable resorce. it uses vegtible oil and
ethonal both plant based. infact if you can believe the local paper shell
oil is installing a bio fuel station just 4 miles from my home and the
station is already under construction.

--
-Chris
05 CTD
99 Durango


"Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Comments4u > wrote:
>
> > But there is always opportunity. With the added weight,
> > Lee Iacocca may be tagging Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep
> > commercials with "Built like a Mercedes". Of course, if
> > that turns out to be true, Chrysler Financial will soon
> > be in the business of offering car equity loans for the
> > repair bills.
>
> Some of these companies just keep missing the point. They could sustain
> some corporate fat if they produced leaner (i.e., energy efficient)
> products. An SUV, for example, that gets 50MPG would sell like hot
> cakes, as would a sedan that's as economical.
>
> The price of gas is only going to go up as Asian nations consume more of
> it and compete for it on the world market. Anyone who has any sense and
> who's in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most
> economical vehicle that fits their needs.
>
> Chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and
> more reliable. When it does that, its financial problems will go away.
> Likewise for GM and Ford.

Christopher Thompson wrote:

> at this risk of starting a further argument. im a proponet of alternative
> fuels but i dont believe hydrogen or hybrid to be it. i believe we could use
> bio fuels more readily (the distribution infastructure is already inplace)
> and is practically a infanately renuable resorce. it uses vegtible oil and
> ethonal both plant based. infact if you can believe the local paper shell
> oil is installing a bio fuel station just 4 miles from my home and the
> station is already under construction.

Is that not the type of fuel that you have to dump more energy in to get
a given amount out (i.e. is a net loss), and therefore if it were not
for gubmint subsidies would not be economoically feasible?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

The problem here Max is this is a German company. I am talking about the
American companies that lay off 500 workers and then give the CEO a
10,000,000 salary increase and bonuses for raising the profit margin.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Max Dodge" > wrote in message
news:zO6Df.1064$ap3.537@trndny03...
> Actually Tbone, look at what Zeitsche is about to do at DC...... cut
> management jobs.
>
> --
> Max
>
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
> soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
>
>
> "TBone" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Roy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> > No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take
back
> >> > it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the
EPA
> >> > being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
> >>
> >> How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
> >> hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who
the
> >> hell here can afford a pay cut?
> >>
> >
> > And the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the
> > workers, never from the owners or upper management. Perhaps if the
> > salaries
> > of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far
> > more
> > competitive but God forbid that ever happens.
> >
> > --
> > If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
> >
> >
>
>

Max Dodge wrote:
> None of what you are saying makes much sense. Evidence of this is
> your claim that you'd buy Fiat, Peugot and Renault. Great, patronize
> your government by purchasing known inferior cars.

None of those are British and none are actually inferior. GM has just had to
pay a huge sum to Fiat to get out of a contract it could not afford. Have
you any experience of those cars? Millions of satisfied customers run them
and I have just bought my first Fiat recently to go with my year old Range
Rover and eight year old Land Cruiser. I am very satisfied with all of them.

Meanwhile, you
> extoll the virtues of a free market economy. Sorta hypocritical to
> throw government owned business in at the top of the diatribe,

Fiat is a family owned business and neither of the others are government
owned so I am not sure what you are on about.


then
> revert to free market, and THEN claim the U.S. doesn't like a free
> market.

Did I say that? No. But it is evident that some posters here do not wish it
to be a free market when they are less competitive, only when they come out
top. Rather hypocritical don't you think?
The US government is sticking to free market principles in this case [they
don't always, thinking of steel] but it is a few posters here that are
arguing that they should put up the shutters. I am saying that it will do
them more harm than good.



>
> Not making sense to you? Great, neither does your essay.
>
>

Then you have a problem. Are you a street sweeper or the office coffee maker
by any chance?

Huw

Bill Putney wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:24:13 +0000, Pooh Bear
>> > wrote:
>
>>> No. It's about getting America off its lardy ass and competing at
>>> world standard productivity levels.
>>
>>
>> You mean like they do over in Europe, which has both shorter work
>> weeks and more vacation days every year than Americans do?
>
> Imagine how much worse their presently abysmal unemployment numbers
> would be if they had the longer work week and less vacation time
> (i.e., they'd have to lay people off to achieve the same number of
> work hours/productivity/output levels).
>

Although this is not a new story it is relevant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3564275.stm

Huw

Number of riders isn't a measure of efficiency. Capacity per unit of fuel
used is the efficency level. I'll agree we are not using our rail
efficiently, THAT is my point. But it doesn't make cars more efficient than
rail, just because we drive cars more frequently.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)


"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> And I forgot to mention Huw's point about fuel per passenger mile. As
> things are now many trains run at well below capacity so the unit use of
> fuel can be high. Just because the power stations feeding the rail
> network are out of sight does not mean they don't use fuel. Or the diesel
> engines pulling the trains don't use prodigious amounts of diesel...
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Rail is a pipe dream as a Big Solution. I saw the results of a study in
>> the UK about getting freight onto rail. If rail freight were doubled (!)
>> overnight (a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity, so
>> imagine the HUGE investment) then road freight would go down by a mere
>> 10%.
>>
>> Most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by
>> rail.
>>
>> On passenger traffic/cars, I wonder what diff it would make. I like to
>> take the train for city centre-to-centre journeys, but how may of those
>> do I make? Why is it that in major countries the only really viable
>> routes are the major ones like along the East Coast (Boston-Washington
>> DC), London-Glasgow or Edinburgh with only the cities on the route,
>> Munich-Hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way, Paris-Lyon.
>>
>> DAS
>>
>> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
>> ---
>>
>> "Max Dodge" > wrote in message
>> news:t25Df.1264$0J3.1063@trndny08...
>> [...]
>> consumption. If you are that concerned sir, take up the cause of rail
>>> transport with your congresssman. A good rail system will cut use of
>>> personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the
>>> highways. This will save far more fuel than a Dodge Durango that weighs
>>> 600 pounds less.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Max
>> [...]
>>
>>
>
>

"Huw" > wrote in
:

> Roy wrote:
>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:17:37 -0500, "Roy" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>> No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take
>>>>> back it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts
>>>>> and the EPA being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
>>>>
>>>> How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick
>>>> of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all.
>>>> Who the hell here can afford a pay cut?
>>>
>>> Which would you rather have: your pay cut, or your job cut?
>>
>>> A lot of Ford and GM workers are about to wish they had taken the
>>> pay cut...
>>> --
>> You folks continue with the same mantra. Cut the workers wages. It is
>> damn easy to say until it affects you. Also the same bs "it will be
>> your job if you don't take a pay cut" The jobs will go anyway.
>>
>
>
> It may be a choice between some jobs going and a pay cut for the rest
> or all of the jobs going.
> All jobs are of the 'here today, gone tomorrow' type in a competitive
> economy. There is a train of thought that all change is good because
> it is always followed by innovation and increased competitiveness, but
> I'm not sure I agree with that. The winners in a previous era are
> usually resentful if they lose out to new winners. The trick I think
> is to make sure no one loses out for long and a good standard of
> living with an opportunity of new employment can be had by all.
>
> Huw


Really, overpopulation is the main culprit (also in most problems on
Earth). If there weren't teeming masses of desperate people in 3rd
world nations begging to work 12 hour days for $1 an hour, then the
CEO's of corporations in industrialized nations wouldn't be salivating
at the thought of moving production to these 3rd world nations. But of
course, the middle classes in industrialized nations are getting hurt
and their buying power is decreasing which will hurt the long term
health of the economy and the very corporations that are leaving the
USA. Botton line: too many folks, overpopulation, and more importantly,
the poor Earth is being raped environmentally by this swarm of parasites
(humans). "growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer
cell." (edward abbey). It's funny, I talk of overpopulation, and no one
ever replies. Apathy and ignorance.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:20:41 -0500, Shawn Hirn >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Comments4u > wrote:
>
>> But there is always opportunity. With the added weight,
>> Lee Iacocca may be tagging Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep
>> commercials with "Built like a Mercedes". Of course, if
>> that turns out to be true, Chrysler Financial will soon
>> be in the business of offering car equity loans for the
>> repair bills.
>
>Some of these companies just keep missing the point. They could sustain
>some corporate fat if they produced leaner (i.e., energy efficient)
>products. An SUV, for example, that gets 50MPG would sell like hot
>cakes, as would a sedan that's as economical.
>
>The price of gas is only going to go up as Asian nations consume more of
>it and compete for it on the world market. Anyone who has any sense and
>who's in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most
>economical vehicle that fits their needs.
>
>Chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and
>more reliable. When it does that, its financial problems will go away.
>Likewise for GM and Ford.


interesting thread. as i understand it, one of the big cost
advantages that the japanese have is simply that their plants are
newer and more modern. it costs a whole lot less to come in and build
new efficient factories than to rebuild an old system like the "big
three" had. we really didn't do anything to help promote new
factories by our auto industry either. we sort of sat around watching,
playing the violin while this fire burned. in fact, the pressure was
there from the politicians to retool the factories (which costs a lot
and in the end still creates an inefficient assembly line) because the
politicians wanted their public to see them fighting to keep their
same jobs at the same factories. even then, the "big three" have
changed their assembly and quality. my dodge truck has been every bit
as reliable as the two japanese cars and one old german car that i
have. i think the problem lies in imagination. honda built a car
that looked good and people wanted to buy. ford, gm and dc built
small cars that looked cheap. seems to me that the ford escape is one
of the first units to come along that can catch the imagination of the
public, and is a small somewhat fuel efficient car. i don't think the
problem has been the work force but rather the management. i mean look
at what the gm response was. the japanese hit the suv market with
great little reliable cars that got pretty decent mileage for their
days. gm responded with the blazer! it had a six in it that pretty
much self destructed at 60,000 miles, got about 13 miles per gallon
and looked like a cardboard box on four tires. what a great response.
in the 20 years since then, what has gm designed to compete with the
pilot, cr-v, forester, four runner? i mean come on, they have
certainly had enough time to come up with something. they haven't.
who in the world is running that place? or better yet, is anyone
running that place? but, and tbone makes this point, the cost
cutting falls on the worker and not on the management. maybe that is
just the way that it is, but it doesn't seem fair. the workers have
been out there building cars, it is the leaders, the managers and our
politicians that have screwed this up. but that seems to be the norm.
i really think that other nations have been able to take advantage of
a period when our political leaders have just sucked. it isn't just
the auto industry that has suffered. it is just an example of poor
planning and poor leadership. then, the fix seems to be to take away
the pay and benefits that the workers have. and we buy into that
philosophy. look at this thread. we all see it happening and here we
are talking about it. what are our politicians doing about it?
playing partisan politics to keep thier jobs. other than that, they
are doing pretty much nothing, other than making sure that thier pay
and benefits are not reduced. this isn't a repub v. demo rant either,
they both have been very lacking. that, i believe, is where not only
the blame lies but also the answer.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:21:19 -0500, Bill Putney >
wrote:

>Roy wrote:
>
>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:17:37 -0500, "Roy" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in message
r.com...
>>>>
>>>>>No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take back
>>>>>it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the EPA
>>>>>being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
>>>>
>>>>How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
>>>>hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the
>>>>hell here can afford a pay cut?
>>>
>>>Which would you rather have: your pay cut, or your job cut?
>>
>>
>>>A lot of Ford and GM workers are about to wish they had taken the pay
>>>cut...
>>>--
>>
>> You folks continue with the same mantra. Cut the workers wages. It is damn
>> easy to say until it affects you. Also the same bs "it will be your job if
>> you don't take a pay cut" The jobs will go anyway.
>>
>> Roy
>
>Calling it a mantra does not make it an invalid point. The post you
>originally responded to did not *only* mention pay cuts. It also
>mentioned EPA regulations. You can't isolate any one point as a
>cause/cure. Typically the same people who are the union protectionists
>are also in favor of internal legislation and international agreements
>that ultimately force jobs overseas. Both points have to be addressed
>together. An open market eventually equalizes everything out - change
>or die.
>

i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill.
it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign
industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments
that ours have not. you can't have it both ways. either we have an
open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing
nations governments, or we provide the same benefits to our industry
that the others have. you can not "equalize everything out" when the
rules are not equal.


>Bill Putney
>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with the letter 'x')