GM about to go belly up and take the dollar with it!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"76266)</div>

Oh? I thought the "market" for SUV's was down 30%? Around here the large SUV's and pickup trucks are parked on the lot and backing up, the small cars are flying off the lots.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"76266)</div>

They were pragmatic and dealt with a problem. We can either do the same or let the world market (Higher oil prices) do it for us.

In most EU countries, the overall population density is far higher and suitable inputs (Oil, coal, etc) are scarce. Their solution works for them, that is higher consumption price.

The problem is, if the price increase is soley based on higher input costs, there is little room for excise taxes, so where do you fund the mass transit and other solutions? More deficits?

Either way, the fuel Price *will* go up, consumers *will* demand more efficient automobiles, and they *will* purchase them. So once again Price will drive the search for a more efficient solution.

And I refuse to give GM et al one penny of taxes to have them build a solution that they already have in the EU. You rarely see any mention of The Hydrogen Economy in the EU, but here it's like some magic carrot dangled in front of us.

I doubt we'll run out of Black Gold in my lifetime, but it will become so expensive we will be forced to change our consumption patterns and lifestyles. That is, not only have more efficient appliances and automobiles, but still use them less.

The problem with "conservatives" now is that they've become "liberal" in promising all kinds of things but neglecting to mention how it will be paid for. The closest I've seen to my liking is Libertarians.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"76263)</div>

There is only one way for Americans to protect themselves from large corporations, and that is it's government. It's a myth that people will be more free when government is small. Just look at the 19th century. The US Federal Gov was tiny and weak. The life of the common man was controlled by the factory owner and if you squeaked about it, your head got bashed in.

In 1880, if you lost your arm at work all you got was fired. In 1980 you got something and it was government that saw to it that you got it.

The 20th century saw ever increasing government size and through regulation, ever decreasing corporate power. It also saw ever increasing progressive taxation, at least until the 1980s. These are cornerstones of Liberalism.

Personally, I think the 20th century was a success.

Now though, progress for common people seems to be waning or even reversing. It's not a coincidence that the death of (American) liberalism happened at about the same time.

 

Jayman: Oh? I thought the "market" for SUV's was down 30%? Around here the large SUV's and pickup trucks are parked on the lot and backing up, the small cars are flying off the lots.

I'm talking about over the last 15 years. Had "we the people" told them through our laws to make high MPG, they would have. Just like we told them to put seat belts in, and we told them to make bumpers better, and we told them to polute less. Every time they told us they shouldn't be foreced to do it, and that it would kill the industry, and every time they did it and they thrived.

"We the people" (in the form of our government) stopped telling them what to do, mainly because the Republicans came to power, and now we are way behind Toyota.

(Yes, I know Clinton was a Democrat, but the congress has been Republican since 1994, and it's now "fringe" Republican. Great for the rich and powerful, bad for America.)

 

There appears to be a contradiction here. On the one hand, liberalism is dying out. On the other hand, more people are - theoretically - impacted by that.

Last time I checked, we're not a military dictatorship or some Communist s*** hole. So why do folks keep voting for the "bad" conservatives?

It could be that voting is tied more to local influences than true national trends.

For example, here in Canada the Liberal Party rides into victory (Or at least a Minority gov) by winning the Greater Toronto Area and Montreal. In the Western provinces, most vote PC (Progressive Conservative).

Back when Preston Manning had the Reform Party in Alberta, the Liberal's were terrified at his sudden rise in fame and voter support in the West. Due to health reasons, he stepped down.

But wrenching this topic back to GM (Creeaaaak!) they are capable of producing small fuel efficient cars in EU. Here they appear to be too ignorant or arrogant to do so. This has more to do with market miscalculation and management blunders.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"76279)</div>

"You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." I'm still waiting for that third phrase to come true.

But I'm starting to wonder if maybe PT Barnum was right:
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Though I would change the word people to voter. I think a lot of the American people realize what's happening, they just don't vote. They think that the two sides are just as bad, and in many ways they are right. That's why I don't call myself a democrat. I'm an anti republican.

And as for the libertarians, they offer a lot of intelligence, but I went to see the Libertarian Presidential candidate back in 2000 and he wanted social security stopped. When someone asked him how he would get rid of it, he had no answer. As far as I'm concerned, the current leaders of the libertarian party play right into the hands of the corporate elite. The Libertarian leadership wants to go back to lassaiz faire capitalism. I'm against that. I agree that Government can get out of hand, but we can at least theoretically throw them out. If we go back to lassaiz faire, common people will NOT be more free, they will be substantially LESS free.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"76277)</div>

"We the people" went on this binge of "bedroom community" homes far too big for our needs in the 90's. "We the people" went on this binge of large SUV's and pickup trucks in the 90's. Of course, our input costs were artificially low too. Last time I checked, Clinton et al were not Republicans.

Now that "we the people" have been kicked in the a** with higher prices, we're choosing with our pocketbooks. Toyota of course is doing well off this. Good marketing, good business decisions, kudos to them.

Much like how folks turned to Toyota and Honda in the 1980's when they got sick and tired of the absolutely s*** quality cars rolling off the Big Three assembly lines. It had nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, it had to do with folks looking out for their best interest.

The last time I bought a domestic brand was my 1984 Ford F-150. I've driven Toyota and Honda since then, until 2000 when I was foolish enough to get that piece of s*** GMC Sierra.

Well, I paid for it. Never again. I was a complete dumb a** buying that piece of s*** and I have only myself to blame. They'll never get my business ever again.

So can you "force" a car maker to make better vehicles? Sure you can, with your pocketbook. Just like you can chose where to live and how to live.

I just don't like a bunch of whiny folks p****** and moaning about the bad choices they made and blaming everybody else in society except themselves.

Example: buying a 2,400 sq ft 2 story home in the burbs when the kids (BTW all 2 or just 1 of them) have already moved out, so they live in this enormous empty house and drive +30 miles to work.

What do you "gain?" High utility bills, constant yard work, and an empty home to clean. Perhaps if more folks woke up, smelled the coffee, and got serious, they wouldn't be whining for gov "help" in the form of fuel rebates and utility rebates and property tax rebates.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"76281)</div>

Hmm perhaps the Republic is a failure then. Time to get rid of that nasty voting system and replace it with absolute power.

I think FEMA would do a good job. All we have to do now is hope for a catastrophic natural disaster.

 

Wow, are you a fast typist!

 

Yes I know that Clinton was a Democrat, but he was not a liberal and he really only slowed down the turning of this country over to the corporate elite, he did not reverse that turnover. That's why I'm an anti Republican, NOT and Democrat. I tend to vote Demmo simply because if they won't improve America, at least they won't make it worse.

But I have to go. I want to thank you for a wonderful discusssion. I've had other conversations in Priuschat and in other forums and often the converstaion would decay into name calling and insult. Never once did I sense that from you. Thank you,
Mark

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"76286)</div>

120 WPM. I used to get up to 160 WPM but that was back when I was a lad. Now can only do 80-120 WPM, around 60 sustained. The "joy of getting old" and all that.

 

GM makes more profit on Large SUVs due to fewer safety and emissions regulations applied to vehicles built on truck frames. GM, as a result, focuses vast amounts of marketing on creating a demand for these units. The TV ads for the suburban even make me proud to be an American. They have been very affective at convincing the masses that every family needs a vehicle with that kind of room and power. If station wagons had been exempted from the rules, we would still be driving those, because the marketing would have stayed focused on them, like it was in the 60s.

Now GM says they are only providing the American public with the products that they demand. GM used successful marketing to artificially create that demand. If they had marketed fuel efficient and safe cars, that's where the demand would be now.

The wording of the regulations, has created the exact situation that they were meant to avoid. That wording was a direct result of successful lobbying by the big three. All the while, the big three threatened a loss of jobs, if they were forced to change the way they did business. Now a huge number of jobs within those three companies have been sent elsewhere to preserve profits.

America has been betrayed by GM over and over but when I see that commercial with all the different generations of the Suburban it makes me want to include it in the national anthem. It is after all, "the heartbeat of America".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"76287)</div>

Mark:

Well, once it decays into insults, it's no longer technically a "conversation."

My best friend and I often disagree on matters as inane as how to frame a house, a HOUSE, and it goes on for HOURS.

Never nasty, just a lot of nitty-picky details that afterwards we completely forget what the h*** even started it. Geez, you know you're getting old ...

Anyhoo, it's difficult to label a person as strictly "Republican" or "Democrat" as honestly I really can't tell them apart anymore. I prefer "fiscal conservative social moderate with strong Libertarian leanings" myself. I'm sure we can leave it at that, deal?

As far as GM, if they didn't have subsidiaries in the rest of the world where they sold fuel efficient cars, I might feel sorry for them. Same as Ford and DC.

The fact is, all three are perfectly capable of producing and selling fuel efficient, desirable cars everywhere but here. Let's not even get started on their s*** quality; true it has come a long way but it's still s*** compared to Toyota and Honda.

When you consider that Toyota and Honda assemble some of their most popular family cars (Corolla and Camry and Accord come to mind) right here in North America using UAW, with very high quality, something just doesn't add up in the usual way.

GM et al can try to bring up the "patriotism" thing like they did in the 80's, but I think it will backfire on them again. Same as all this fanatically weird anti-Prius sentiment out there from a handful of kooks: it only shines the spotlight on the Prius that much brighter.

Jay

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray Moore\";p=\"76289)</div>

Ray:

Of course! "Rollover, what rollover?"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray Moore\";p=\"76289)</div>

Like how they market safe fuel efficient cars in Europe? Remember how Volvo really pushed the safety issue, it worked for them and soon everybody jumped on the same bandwagon.

Lee Iacoca started off as an anti-airbag windbag, but once he realized the sales potential he changed his tune pronto.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray Moore\";p=\"76289)</div>

"Marketing 101"

 

Jayman- if you weren't a million miles from Texas, I would really enjoy spending some quality porch time with you. You have earned my respect.

 

Ray: We don't get the Suburban ad's here on the west coast. Just the Cavalier and Sunfire ads. I've never seen a Suburban ad. I guess it's a regional issue. They sure do pump the Cav's and Sunfire ads though, on all the time. Nissan and DC are the big pumps here. Hemi this and Hemi that. I really don't care if you have 12 2x4 and your surfboard and guitar and amp in the back, you'll be broke driving it like that. Some Toyota ads also. They did as short ad session for the Prius about 2 months back.

 

fixing social insecurity

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"76281)</div>

"You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." I'm still waiting for that third phrase to come true.

But I'm starting to wonder if maybe PT Barnum was right:
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Though I would change the word people to voter. I think a lot of the American people realize what's happening, they just don't vote. They think that the two sides are just as bad, and in many ways they are right. That's why I don't call myself a democrat. I'm an anti republican.

And as for the libertarians, they offer a lot of intelligence, but I went to see the Libertarian Presidential candidate back in 2000 and he wanted social security stopped. When someone asked him how he would get rid of it, he had no answer. As far as I'm concerned, the current leaders of the libertarian party play right into the hands of the corporate elite. The Libertarian leadership wants to go back to lassaiz faire capitalism. I'm against that. I agree that Government can get out of hand, but we can at least theoretically throw them out. If we go back to lassaiz faire, common people will NOT be more free, they will be substantially LESS free.[/b][/quote]

As a Libertarian, I have an answer for the social insecurity program that is now forced upon us.

First, transfer all money stolen from the citizens back to them in the form of a 401K type of account - this would include all medicare taxes as well.

Continue to withold the current amounts now taken for the above, and deposit those funds into the citizens private account. The matching funds that corporations supposedly pay into SSI, would also be put into the person's private account. The government cannot for any reason, EVER touch one cent of this money to "borrow" to "balance" the federal budget. The citizen then has the right to control how this account is diversified between stocks and/or bonds. There would be a few stipulations:

1: You cannot for any reason other than becoming permanently disabled, touch one red cent of this money prior to retiring.

2: The fund must have some level of diversity, so as to protect it from being totally wiped out in the event of an economic crisis.

3: The money would be distributed to you in a monthy allotment, so as to maximize the useful life of the account after retirement.

4: The income generated by this retirement account would be permanently, and irrevocably tax free.

5: If the account holder dies prior to the account being exhausted, all remaining funds are to be disbursed to the surviving family members "federal retirement accounts." If there is literally NO surviving family members left to transfer these funds to, then, and only then, can the government legally divert these funds to the general tax fund.

6: Now for the nasty - once the money runs out, you are done. Therefore you still MUST plan a proper retirement account, same as if no retirement systems ever existed.

I think this would work, and work well. The hard part is selling it to the ones who stand to lose the most - the government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"76263)</div>

There is no need for a mass transit plan by government once fuel taxes are raised enough. People will find a way to get around, the market will provide if government gets out of the way. Railroads were not built by governments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wolfman\";p=\"76305)</div>

"You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." I'm still waiting for that third phrase to come true.

But I'm starting to wonder if maybe PT Barnum was right:
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Though I would change the word people to voter. I think a lot of the American people realize what's happening, they just don't vote. They think that the two sides are just as bad, and in many ways they are right. That's why I don't call myself a democrat. I'm an anti republican.

And as for the libertarians, they offer a lot of intelligence, but I went to see the Libertarian Presidential candidate back in 2000 and he wanted social security stopped. When someone asked him how he would get rid of it, he had no answer. As far as I'm concerned, the current leaders of the libertarian party play right into the hands of the corporate elite. The Libertarian leadership wants to go back to lassaiz faire capitalism. I'm against that. I agree that Government can get out of hand, but we can at least theoretically throw them out. If we go back to lassaiz faire, common people will NOT be more free, they will be substantially LESS free.[/b][/quote]

As a Libertarian, I have an answer for the social insecurity program that is now forced upon us.

First, transfer all money stolen from the citizens back to them in the form of a 401K type of account - this would include all medicare taxes as well.

Continue to withold the current amounts now taken for the above, and deposit those funds into the citizens private account. The matching funds that corporations supposedly pay into SSI, would also be put into the person's private account. The government cannot for any reason, EVER touch one cent of this money to "borrow" to "balance" the federal budget. The citizen then has the right to control how this account is diversified between stocks and/or bonds. There would be a few stipulations:

1: You cannot for any reason other than becoming permanently disabled, touch one red cent of this money prior to retiring.

2: The fund must have some level of diversity, so as to protect it from being totally wiped out in the event of an economic crisis.

3: The money would be distributed to you in a monthy allotment, so as to maximize the useful life of the account after retirement.

4: The income generated by this retirement account would be permanently, and irrevocably tax free.

5: If the account holder dies prior to the account being exhausted, all remaining funds are to be disbursed to the surviving family members "federal retirement accounts." If there is literally NO surviving family members left to transfer these funds to, then, and only then, can the government legally divert these funds to the general tax fund.

6: Now for the nasty - once the money runs out, you are done. Therefore you still MUST plan a proper retirement account, same as if no retirement systems ever existed.

I think this would work, and work well. The hard part is selling it to the ones who stand to lose the most - the government.
[/b][/quote]

The money is gone that was taxed. It has been spent. So, there is nothing there to give back.

And there is no political stomach for reducing benefits, so the USA is on a course for a great depression when we bankrupt the dollar attempting to pay all the promises we cannot keep.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"76274)</div>

There is only one way for Americans to protect themselves from large corporations, and that is it's government. It's a myth that people will be more free when government is small. Just look at the 19th century. The US Federal Gov was tiny and weak. The life of the common man was controlled by the factory owner and if you squeaked about it, your head got bashed in.

In 1880, if you lost your arm at work all you got was fired. In 1980 you got something and it was government that saw to it that you got it.

The 20th century saw ever increasing government size and through regulation, ever decreasing corporate power. It also saw ever increasing progressive taxation, at least until the 1980s. These are cornerstones of Liberalism.

Personally, I think the 20th century was a success.

Now though, progress for common people seems to be waning or even reversing. It's not a coincidence that the death of (American) liberalism happened at about the same time.
[/b][/quote]

Protection from factory owners??? What history book did you learn that from? Ford Motor Company paid very high wages, drew large crowds of people that were very anxious to work for them.

Most folks worked on a farm and everyone had a choice of employers. Massive numbers of people moved to America then and got employment when they got off the ship.

Benefits became popular as recruitment tools in the 1920's because of a worker shortage.

We are much poorer today than we would have been if not for government regulation. Take just one small example, zoning setback ordanances. People burn up fossil fuels to drive miles and miles because of those setbacks.

Another example is the effect of regulation on the railroad industry. after 120 years of stifiling competition, we move goods by the highly costly method of individual trucks which tear up our roads. We should be shipping most stuff by the cheapest land transport method, which is the rail, but Nooo, we are screwed by the government out of that...

About any example of government regulation is a long term horror story. That even extends to the FDA, where drug approval rates are well behind the rest of the developed world.

 

Wolfman-
We are the government. When you say transfer the money back to the citizens, where do you mean to transfer it from? Do you mean to try to take back all the retirement checks that have been paid out over the past 60+ years.

The problem is that when the social security system was established, the money collected was immediately paid out to a generation that never paid in. The funds that you have been paying in over the years have been used to write the social security checks to the current retirees and the surplus has been used to cover government spending shortfalls in order to avoid raising your taxes.

If I understand you, it would mean taking back all the retirement checks paid while you have been paying in as well as the amount used to cover spending shortfalls. This would result in a retroactive tax bill sent to you to cover the amount not taxed to you previously.

The reality is that we haven't been paying our bills for years, but instead, borrowing from our kids future earnings. We intend to not only continue doing this, but accelerate the process. All the current proposals will make the shortfalls worse instead of better by reducing the amounts paid into the system.

We must increase taxes and cut spending in order to stem the tide of spending shortfalls and take responsibility for the financial mistakes of our generation. Our failure to do so will prove our lack of ethical fortitude and our short-sighted self-interest.

Playing the equity and bond markets with the national retirement system is a shameful display of greed sold by the market players to those who hope to reap a capital gain. The potential for total market collapse with this huge capital influx is huge. It would work out like a huge pyramid scheme with the earliest retirees benifitting the most from the inflows into the markets until the outflows surpassed the inflows and the later retirees would face a bubble collapse larger than the recent one by an order of magnitude.

Hopefully, those that experienced that collapse will prevent it's recurrence instead of seeing this as a chance to recoup their loss.