fiat

On 2009-05-05, > wrote:

> That's a bizarre theory of jurisprudence. How do these judges decide
> cases, with coin tosses? If so, how can it be that the coin toss turns
> out the same as this case works its way through as many as three
> levels of appeal?

The judges are the law now. Maybe you haven't noticed? They decide on
their OPINIONS, what benefits them, their employer, etc. The law is way
down the list if it's on it at all for many a judge. Just look at many
of the laws that obviously violate our natural rights (many of which are
outlined in the Bill of Rights) that the courts approve of.

> I think, Brett, that the correct answer is that you are an ignorant
> windbag. But I would never say so in public.

Ahh.. another sleepy american who thinks government's courts are fair
and unbiased. LOL.

> Unless you have in mind a particular legal issue which is going to be
> submitted to a jury in this Chrysler Chapter 11 proceeding, I don't
> understand why you brought up juries -- other than the reason that
> you are an ignorant windbag. But "the jury is out" on that one --
> hee hee -- so we'll let it go.

You were acting as if government court system was fair and unbiased.
It's nothing of the sort. I was offering just the most obvious example
of it.

On May 5, 4:33*pm, Joe > wrote:
> wrote in news:71ed46fd-c5d0-4870-a2a3-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 9:33*am, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2009-05-05, > wrote:
>
> >> > Fiat doesn't have the Mopar pink slip yet.
>
> >> Fiat hasn't ruined performance brands it owns/controls such as
> Ferrari
> >> so I don't see what a problem Fiat ownership would be.
>
> > You're right. A European luxury car maker takes over Chrysler: what
> > could possibly go wrong?
>
> > Anyway, I didn't say one way or the other whether Fiat ownership could
> > be a problem. It's difficult -- no, impossible -- to imagine
> > Chrysler's problems getting worse. *Actually it's Fiat that has a
> > problem, if this deal does go through. I don't see how they think they
> > can make any money out of this deal. *Certainly free market sales of
> > motor vehicles is not going to do it. That leaves the U.S. government
> > as the only possible source of a return on Fiat's "investment."
>
> Chrysler is Fiat's ticket into the U.S. market. *Takes them into a whole
> 'nother league. *A car like the 500 would put Chrysler ahead of both
> Ford and GM instantly. *After the dust settles from the economy, they'd
> be positioned decently.

I think Al's 18 month prediction is more likely than Joe's dinky car
scenario. I think it's more likely than not (51% vs. 49%) that
Chrysler's plants -- all of which shut down last Friday (May 1) for
the duration of the Chapter 11 proceeding -- will never reopen.

As far as a Fiat 500 type car being a market hit sufficient to pull
Chrysler ahead of Ford and GM, that's impossible. The 500 is smaller
than a Mini Cooper. Although the 500's unusually narrow -- adopted to
navigate the streets of its home country -- need not be carried over
to a U.S. model, we already have some VERY good choices in this micro
segment, in the Honda Fit and the Toyota Yaris. Neither of these
registered in the Top 20 for April 2009. Check the Top 20 chart on
this Wall Street Journal page: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/pag...tml#autosalesB

The problem with these dinky cars is that there is no profit in them.
Federal CAFE regulations force domestic automakers to sell vehicles in
this class at a loss, to try to attract enough buyers to these high
mpg vehicles to balance out their larger, lower mpg models. I would
be surprised if even Honda or Toyota are making any money with the Fit
or Yaris.

I don't care how many times Pres. Oprompter brays it to his adoring
press corp, a vehicle that you lose money on each one you sell is not
the road to "sustainability."

Also keep in mind that GM and Chrysler start out from way behind
Toyota and Honda, with a UAW-induced disadvantage averaging $1,500 in
wages and benefits per vehicle they have to collect before making a
profit. With the UAW pension plan owning 55% of a post-bankruptcy
Mopar, you think that $1,500/vehicle profit gap is going to close? I
definitely do not.

I don't know how relevant these figures are to this discussion, but
check the bottom chart on the WSJ page, showing market share. Here's
a summary of the bottom line:

52.7%--Total Car
18.6%--Domestic Car
34.1%--Import Car
47.3%--Total Truck
28.9%--Domestic Truck
18.4%--Import Truck

Domestic Car -- 18.6%!!! Will the last person to leave Detroit please
turn out the lights!

180 Out

From the WSJ of Friday, May 01, 2009 - looking at only those mfgs
that sold >25,000 cars in Jan-Apr 2009, the "winners" (meaning
those that lost the least year-over-year) are the two Korean
manufacturers: those that sold cars based primarily on price.

I can't wait ;-) ;-) for WalMart to start selling Chery cars.

<== YTD SALES ==>
2009 2008 % lost
----------- ----------- ------
Hyundai Motor America "129,806" "134,618" -3.6
Kia Motors America Inc. "94,499" "98,280" -3.8
Volkswagen of America Inc. "106,652 "137,105" -22.2
Mercedes-Benz "54,827" "77,960" -29.7
BMW of North America Inc. "58,436" "85,100" -31.3
American Honda Motor Co Inc. "332,014" "487,822" -31.9
Nissan North America Inc. "221,957" "345,600" -35.8
Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. "486,212" "789,448" -38.4
Ford Motor Company "440,045" "733,296" -40.0
General Motors Corp. "578,028" "1,049,966" -44.9
Chrysler LLC "323,890" "601,622" -46.2

--
Cheers, Bob

On May 6, 12:17*pm, Bob Willard >
wrote:
> *From the WSJ of Friday, May 01, 2009 - looking at only those mfgs
> that sold >25,000 cars in Jan-Apr 2009, the "winners" (meaning
> those that lost the least year-over-year) are the two Korean
> manufacturers: *those that sold cars based primarily on price.
>
> I can't wait ;-) ;-) for WalMart to start selling Chery cars.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<== YTD SALES ==>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *2009 * * * * 2008 * * * *% lost
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ----------- *----------- * *------
> Hyundai Motor America * * * * "129,806" * * "134,618" * * *-3.6
> Kia Motors America Inc. * * * *"94,499" * * *"98,280" * * *-3.8
> Volkswagen of America Inc. * *"106,652 * * *"137,105" * * -22.2
> Mercedes-Benz * * * * * * * * *"54,827" * * *"77,960" * * -29.7
> BMW of North America Inc. * * *"58,436" * * *"85,100" * * -31.3
> American Honda Motor Co Inc. *"332,014" * * "487,822" * * -31.9
> Nissan North America Inc. * * "221,957" * * "345,600" * * -35..8
> Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. * "486,212" * * "789,448" * * -38.4
> Ford Motor Company * * * * * *"440,045" * * "733,296" * * -40.0
> General Motors Corp. * * * * *"578,028" * "1,049,966" * * -44.9
> Chrysler LLC * * * * * * * * *"323,890" * * "601,622" * * -46.2
>
> --
> Cheers, Bob

Noteworthy in this table, the 2009 year-to-date figures ranked in
order:

578,028--General Motors Corp. (-44.9)
486,212--Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. (-38.4)
440,045--Ford Motor Company (-40.0)
332,014--American Honda Motor Co Inc. (-31.9)
323,890--Chrysler LLC (-46.2)
221,957--Nissan North America Inc. (-35.8)

Chrysler in fifth place, with Nissan gaining, BEFORE the Chapter 11
filing.

I see Ford coming out on top after all this shakes out. After GM gets
the Obama/UAW/banana republic treatment, Ford will be the last man
standing making full size American pickups.

Sure Tundra and the Titan will still be around, too, but they don't
register in the Top 20 and are therefore not in the same game as the F
series. Go back to that WSJ table of the Top 20. Number 20 -- the
Toyota Tacoma pickup -- sold 9,027 units in April. That means the
Tundra and the Titan (and the Fit and the Yaris too, to return to the
minicar discussion) are somewhere below 9,000 units, while the F sold
29,000, the Silverado 26,500, and the Ram 18,000.

In addition to the F, Ford has three other models in the Top 20:
Fusion (18,000), Escape (13,500), and Focus (12,000).

I heard recently that Ford stock tripled in about a month. There's a
good reason for that.

180 Out

On May 6, 1:51*pm, wrote:
> On May 6, 12:17*pm, Bob Willard >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > *From the WSJ of Friday, May 01, 2009 - looking at only those mfgs
> > that sold >25,000 cars in Jan-Apr 2009, the "winners" (meaning
> > those that lost the least year-over-year) are the two Korean
> > manufacturers: *those that sold cars based primarily on price.
>
> > I can't wait ;-) ;-) for WalMart to start selling Chery cars.
>
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<== YTD SALES ==>
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *2009 * * * * 2008 * * * *% lost
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ----------- *----------- * *------
> > Hyundai Motor America * * * * "129,806" * * "134,618" * * *-3.6
> > Kia Motors America Inc. * * * *"94,499" * * *"98,280" * * *-3.8
> > Volkswagen of America Inc. * *"106,652 * * *"137,105" * * -22.2
> > Mercedes-Benz * * * * * * * * *"54,827" * * *"77,960" * * -29.7
> > BMW of North America Inc. * * *"58,436" * * *"85,100" * * -31.3
> > American Honda Motor Co Inc. *"332,014" * * "487,822" * * -31..9
> > Nissan North America Inc. * * "221,957" * * "345,600" * * -35.8
> > Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. * "486,212" * * "789,448" * * -38..4
> > Ford Motor Company * * * * * *"440,045" * * "733,296" * * -40.0
> > General Motors Corp. * * * * *"578,028" * "1,049,966" * * -44.9
> > Chrysler LLC * * * * * * * * *"323,890" * * "601,622" * * -46.2
>
> > --
> > Cheers, Bob
>
> Noteworthy in this table, the 2009 year-to-date figures ranked in
> order:
>
> 578,028--General Motors Corp. (-44.9)
> 486,212--Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. *(-38.4)
> 440,045--Ford Motor Company (-40.0)
> 332,014--American Honda Motor Co Inc. (-31.9)
> 323,890--Chrysler LLC (-46.2)
> 221,957--Nissan North America Inc. *(-35.8)
>
> Chrysler in fifth place, with Nissan gaining, BEFORE the Chapter 11
> filing.
>
> I see Ford coming out on top after all this shakes out. *After GM gets
> the Obama/UAW/banana republic treatment, Ford will be the last man
> standing making full size American pickups.
>
> Sure Tundra and the Titan will still be around, too, but they don't
> register in the Top 20 and are therefore not in the same game as the F
> series. *Go back to that WSJ table of the Top 20. *Number 20 -- the
> Toyota Tacoma pickup -- sold 9,027 units in April. *That means the
> Tundra and the Titan (and the Fit and the Yaris too, to return to the
> minicar discussion) are somewhere below 9,000 units, while the F sold
> 29,000, the Silverado 26,500, and the Ram 18,000.
>
> In addition to the F, Ford has three other models in the Top 20:
> Fusion (18,000), Escape (13,500), and Focus (12,000).
>
> I heard recently that Ford stock tripled in about a month. *There's a
> good reason for that.
>
> 180 Out

Talking to myself, specifically about GM:

Copied and pasted below, in its entirety, is a Reuters story posted on
its website today (May 7). Here are some bullet points:

* As El Hefe Obama's June 1 deadline for a "new plan" rapidly
approaches, GM announces today that it lost another $10 billion
dollars in 1Q '09, adding to the $88 billion it has lost since 2005.

* GM's "new plan" for the $40 billion it owes to its creditors is to
trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. Adding the necessary
shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at
$1.59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to $0.02. That's not a
whole lot more than $0.00. (Picture this: you're walking along and
you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the
sidewalk. Which one would you stoop to pick up? ("Neither" is an
acceptable answer.))

* Shares worth $0.02 apiece are OK, because GM's currently operative
"old plan" is for the U.S. government to own a majority stake anyway.
We've already "loaned GM $15.4 billion, a total which will have
increased to $18 billion by the time El Hefe's June 1 deadline rolls
around. Missing from today's story is the fact that GM employs only
73,454 assembly line workers (according to September 2007 figures on
the UAW's own web site -- http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php )
Do the math: that's $245,000 per job ALREADY -- before the government
takes on a majority stake.)

* Here's the money quote: "The automaker said on Thursday that it
had not yet reached the deal it needs with the UAW." Can you blame
the union? They know the fix is in; just look at Chrysler, where the
UAW is getting 55% ownership, $600,000,000 in cash from Daimler, El
Hefe's shock troops strong arming the hold out creditors, and an open-
ended commitment from El Hefe to continue pumping in as much cash as
it takes to keep that rotting leaking garbage scow afloat.

So here's the Reuters story

GM posted a first-quarter net loss of $6 billion, compared with a loss
of $3.3 billion a year earlier. The company has lost $88 billion since
its turnaround efforts began in 2005 under former Chief Executive Rick
Wagoner.

The losses are expected to mount in the current quarter when GM shuts
down U.S. manufacturing plants for up to nine weeks in an effort to
run down inventory and lessen its exposure to bankrupt former
subsidiary Delphi Corp.

GM is negotiating with Delphi's bankruptcy lenders and the U.S.
government to try to find a way to allow the parts supplier to emerge
from bankruptcy after more than three-and-a-half years.

"We would like to have a resolution of Delphi as soon as possible,"
Young told analysts and reporters.

GM is facing a government-imposed June 1 deadline to reach agreements
to overhaul its operations and cut more than $40 billion in debt. It
has taken $15.4 billion in emergency loans from the U.S. Treasury and
expects that to rise to $18 billion by the end of the month.

The first quarter was marked by GM's failure to win backing for a
turnaround plan that the U.S. autos task force concluded was too slow-
moving to succeed. The Obama administration ousted Wagoner as GM chief
executive at the end of the quarter.

Creditors have been looking beyond GM's results, focusing instead on
whether it succeeds in winning debt concessions from its bondholders
and the United Auto Workers union.

The automaker said on Thursday that it had not yet reached the deal it
needs with the UAW.

It also said the Treasury had not yet agreed to convert half of the
loans it has extended to GM into stock in a restructured company, as
the automaker has proposed.

Young said GM was back in talks with union representatives and ready
to negotiate around the clock to reach a settlement.

The UAW faces pressure to accept GM stock in exchange for about $10
billion the union is owed for a trust fund for retiree healthcare.
That would give the union a 39 percent stake in the restructured
company.

Under the restructuring plan GM detailed last month, the government
would own a majority stake, effectively nationalizing the 100-year-old
Detroit-based automaker.

GM shares were down 7 cents or 4.2 percent at $1.59 around midday on
the New York Stock Exchange. The company's pending plan to issue new
shares to pay off creditors would dilute the value of the share to
less than 2 cents.

180 Out

I read the other day that GM is floating out the idea of a reverse stock
split. They would issue ONE SHARE for every ten shares held. They need
to do something because they are creating stock about as fast as Obama
is creating dollars. Before long they will both be worthless.

> wrote in message
...


* GM's "new plan" for the $40 billion it owes to its creditors is to
trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. Adding the necessary
shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at
$1.59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to $0.02. That's not a
whole lot more than $0.00. (Picture this: you're walking along and
you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the
sidewalk. Which one would you stoop to pick up? ("Neither" is an
acceptable answer.))



What year is the penny?

--
John C
'03 Cobra convt.
'00 Cobra R

On May 7, 8:01*pm, "John C." > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> * *GM's "new plan" for the $40 billion it owes to its creditors is to
> trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. *Adding the necessary
> shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at
> $1.59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to $0.02. *That's not a
> whole lot more than $0.00. *(Picture this: *you're walking along and
> you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the
> sidewalk. *Which one would you stoop to pick up? *("Neither" is an
> acceptable answer.))
>
> What year is the penny? *
>
> --
> John C
> '03 Cobra convt.
> '00 Cobra R

Let's say it's from the last year they were made of copper, which
would make two of them worth more than a post-bailout share of GM
shock.

More fun and games came out today, in a 10-page report from GM to
members of Congress regarding GM's plans for overseas production. I
had thought, after I posted my calculation that an $18,000,000,000
bailout to save 73,454 jobs GM works out to $245,000 per job, that
this number was understated for the reason that the 73,454 jobs
doesn't take into account the closing of Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, and
GMC. (It doesn't take into account workforce shrinkage since September
2007, either, which is when the 73,454 number was operative.)

Today GM admits to another plan to shrink its U.S. assembly line
workforce: that its current rescue plan includes doubling the
proportion of cars for the domestic market that it builds offshore.

The correct government response to this plan is, that if that is what
it takes to keep the doors open, then that's what it takes. El Hefe's
response will be, of course, another round of threatened facial
rearrangements and skeletal fractures, and an additional influx of
misappropriated TARP money sufficient to make up for the lost savings
from shipping the jobs overseas.

Here are some quotes from the Washington Post:

"Most of that growth [from 2010 to 2014] -- about two-thirds of it --
will occur in the United States. But about one-third of that growth
will come from other countries, mostly Mexico and South Korea."

"Labor costs in those countries are far lower. While paying a U.S.
autoworker with benefits costs about $54 an hour, a South Korean
worker earns about $22 an hour, a Mexican worker earns less than $10
an hour and some Chinese workers can earn as little as $3 an hour,
industry sources said."

"According to the figures shared with lawmakers, the percentage of
GM's U.S. sales of cars built in the United States dips from 67
percent in 2009 to 61 percent in 2012."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050704336.html

180 Out

On May 8, 6:15*pm, wrote:
> On May 7, 8:01*pm, "John C." > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> > * *GM's "new plan" for the $40 billion it owes to its creditors is to
> > trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. *Adding the necessary
> > shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at
> > $1.59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to $0.02. *That's not a
> > whole lot more than $0.00. *(Picture this: *you're walking along and
> > you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the
> > sidewalk. *Which one would you stoop to pick up? *("Neither" is an
> > acceptable answer.))
>
> > What year is the penny? *
>
> > --
> > John C
> > '03 Cobra convt.
> > '00 Cobra R
>
> Let's say it's from the last year they were made of copper, which
> would make two of them worth more than a post-bailout share of GM
> shock.
>
> More fun and games came out today, in a 10-page report from GM to
> members of Congress regarding GM's plans for overseas production. *I
> had thought, after I posted my calculation that an $18,000,000,000
> bailout to save 73,454 jobs GM works out to $245,000 per job, that
> this number was understated for the reason that the 73,454 jobs
> doesn't take into account the closing of Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, and
> GMC. (It doesn't take into account workforce shrinkage since September
> 2007, either, which is when the 73,454 number was operative.)
>
> Today GM admits to another plan to shrink its U.S. assembly line
> workforce: *that its current rescue plan includes doubling the
> proportion of cars for the domestic market that it builds offshore.
>
> The correct government response to this plan is, that if that is what
> it takes to keep the doors open, then that's what it takes. *El Hefe's
> response will be, of course, another round of threatened facial
> rearrangements and skeletal fractures, and an additional influx of
> misappropriated TARP money sufficient to make up for the lost savings
> from shipping the jobs overseas.
>
> Here are some quotes from the Washington Post:
>
> "Most of that growth [from 2010 to 2014] -- about two-thirds of it --
> will occur in the United States. But about one-third of that growth
> will come from other countries, mostly Mexico and South Korea."
>
> "Labor costs in those countries are far lower. While paying a U.S.
> autoworker with benefits costs about $54 an hour, a South Korean
> worker earns about $22 an hour, a Mexican worker earns less than $10
> an hour and some Chinese workers can earn as little as $3 an hour,
> industry sources said."
>
> "According to the figures shared with lawmakers, the percentage of
> GM's U.S. sales of cars built in the United States dips from 67
> percent in 2009 to 61 percent in 2012."
>
> Source: *http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/05/07/AR200...
>
> 180 Out

On the same day as Venezualan strongman Hugo Chavez instituted a new
program to confiscate the oil wells and drilling equipment of foreign
oil contractors, rather than pay them the hundreds of millions they're
owed for their capital and services, our own El Hefe has shredded the
rule of law and has cleared the way for union ownership of what's left
of Chrysler.

At the beginning of the week, a coalition of secured creditors who
held $1 billion of Chrysler's $6.9 billion total secured debt was
rejecting the 29 cents on the dollar with which El Hefe intends to
waterboard them. The group rightly asserted the priority of their
claims, as secured creditors, over the unsecured claims of the UAW
pension plan. El Hefe disagreed, called them "speculators" with whom
he "does not stand," and threatened, through his Car Czar, to sic the
national news media on the holdout creditors if they didn't go along
with El Hefe's plan to give the UAW 50 cents on the dollar, while
they'll take 29 cents and like it.

In the face of El Hefe's threats, one member of this group -- which
called itself the Non-TARP Lenders, to distinguish its members from
the rest of the secured creditors, whose cooperation El Hefe has
bought with billions in TARP money -- caved in immediately. Further
defections followed. According to today's New York Times, by
Wednesday the holdings represented by the Non-TARP group had shrunk
from $1 billion to $295 million. Yesterday, the two most high dollar
remaining holdouts peeled off, and those left decided simply to
disband as a united front. According to the group's attorney, his
clients came to this decision in recognition of the fact that "they
just don't have the critical mass to withstand the enormous pressure
and machinery of the U.S. government."

I hope the small group of remaining Non-TARP Lenders continues to hold
out for the rule of law, if only to prove that it still exists in this
Year Zero H.C. (Hopey Changey) we now live in. But they probably will
crumble too, when El Hefe's men come around to measure them for cement
footwear.

In other news, I see that the Environmental Protection Agency has
moved formally to keep in effect the Bush Administration's finding,
that the listing of the polar bear as an endangered species is not a
sufficient ground for comprehensive greenhouse gas regulation. Of
course the NYT buries this story on page 16. At least the news that
El Hefe intends to release Guantanamo detainees into U.S. civilian
society -- and with job training and welfare checks to boot -- is
slowly working its way to mainstream media's Page One.

In the same vein as the polar bear story, the Department of Energy's
budget for 2010, rolled out on Thursday, has quietly ended federal
funding of research on the use of hydrogen fuel cells in motor
vehicles. Again, the NYT buries the story. If it had been this time
last year, I guarantee we would have seen front page headlines, "Bush
DOE Cancels Last Best Hope to Save Mankind."

But that's just my nostalgia for 2008 A.D. talking: a waste of energy
for we the living here in the year Zero H.C.

180 Out

columbotrek wrote:
> Jim.GM4DHJ ...... wrote:
>> The Fiat Challenger just doesn't sound right ......
>>
> My Second car was a FIAT (fix it again tony). A 1973 128SL FWD which I
> bought in 1975 with 13,000 miles on it. The second month I owned it, a
> wrist pin keeper failed and the loose pin did serious damage to the
> cylinder wall necessitating a complete engine tear down to sleeve the
> block.


I had an AMC Eagle that was like that. I sure do love my Mustang GT.