PDA

View Full Version : First there were 57 states, now there is this.......



Concordia 33
09-11-2012, 11:15 AM
Just a simple mistake I'm sure (and Romney has had his share of them), but in the interest of equal time......



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1W9ih09gxU&feature=player_embedded

Glen Longino
09-11-2012, 11:26 AM
:D:D Now that's funny!:D

Hwyl
09-11-2012, 11:37 AM
Clearly a reason for ignoring his saving the auto industry and eliminating Bin Laden and voting for the magic underwear guy.

Concordia 33
09-11-2012, 11:48 AM
Clearly a reason for ignoring his saving the auto industry and eliminating Bin Laden and voting for the magic underwear guy.

GM is going to represent a huge financial loss to the taxpayers of the US and may not have saved anything - many investment analysts say that it might go bankrupt anyway. The Chevy Volt is losing $39,000 for every car sold. Moreover, had they been allowed to "fail" most of the jobs and factories would have been happily absorbed by other manufacturers that that would like to increase the US market share.

As fro OBL, it sounds like the most President Obama did was to give the order (hardly that difficult a thing to do) although Valerie Jarrett had talked him out of doing it for 3 months before Leon Panetta could convince him to do it - not quite the "Commander and Chief" image that you might hope for.

Tom Hunter
09-11-2012, 12:18 PM
"GM is going to represent a huge financial loss to the taxpayers of the US" That's a prediction, not a fact, as Yogi Berra said "predictions are very difficult, especially about the future."

"and may not have saved anything" demonstrably not true, GM is still here, and has been since the bailout. The ROI has yet to be determined, but clearly something has been saved.

"many investment analysts say that it might go bankrupt anyway" a group of indeterminite size and expertise says something might happen. So what's the point here?


"The Chevy Volt is losing $39,000 for every car sold." I did some fact checking on this. First, you are wrong, you read an analysis by Rueters that says GM is losing $49k per car sold, and forgot the number before posting here. Second, GM has replied to the article here is thier statement:
Reuters’ estimate of the current loss per unit for each Volt sold is grossly wrong, in part because the reporters allocated product development costs across the number of Volts sold instead of allocating across the lifetime volume of the program, which is how business operates.

Read more: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/reuters-analyzes-ugly-math-of-chevy-volt-sales-costs-gm-responds-168841.html#ixzz26BLxpRyl

Finally, this statement is false: " Moreover, had they been allowed to "fail" most of the jobs and factories would have been happily absorbed by other manufacturers that that would like to increase the US market share."

When GM was collapsing there was no money available due to the financial crisis. That was clear at the time, and it is clearer now.

There are very good reasons to think Obama is a bad President. He has little respect for our civil rights and liberties, he kills Americans without trial, and he has allowed the major banks to continue to commit fraud every day.

He really did kill Bin Laden and he really did save GM. George Bush really did spend a lot on aids in Africa and saved a lot of lives. Even bad presidents get some good things done. Blame him for what he has actually done wrong, don't blame him for an imaginary loss at GM that has not occurred yet.

Tom Hunter
09-11-2012, 12:19 PM
PS The mistake is a good laugh, thanks for posting.

David W Pratt
09-11-2012, 12:33 PM
He also claimed GM was "back to #1"
Seems to have a little trouble with math

Concordia 33
09-11-2012, 02:09 PM
Classic dumbass analysis... the first production run of ANYTHING I ever designed was a huge money loser, if the development costs were allocated over just the initial production run.

Try again... and do the analysis 5 years from now, when much of those development costs will have contributed to the next couple of generations of pluggable hybrids.

[/LEFT]

If anything is dumbass, it's spending 1.2 billion on development of a car when you are trying to emerge from bankruptcy. Your confidence that they will recoup this money will disappear as fast as your confidence that the US would actually make a profit on their GM shares. As I recall you were quite confident that the US (the largest shareholder in GM) would turn a profit on their shares, yet that is very unlikely at this point, and even a modest loss is a fools bet. Given some financial analysts conclusions, GM might not even exist in 5 years.



On the campaign trail, Barack Obama’s signature definition of “success” is the government bailout of General Motors. “I said I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he told (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-lets-repeat-auto-rescue-with-every-manufacturing-131566.html) an audience in Pueblo, CO last week. “Now I want to do the same thing withmanufacturing jobs (http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/obamas-gm-success-story-headed-for-bankruptcy/#), not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.”

That pronouncement should send a shiver up the spine of every American, due to an inconvenient reality: according (http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/) to Forbes Magazine,GM is likely headed for bankruptcy (http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/obamas-gm-success-story-headed-for-bankruptcy/#) all over again.The numbers are stark. The 500,000 shares of GM stock, comprising 26 percent of the company owned by the government–or more accurately the American taxpayer–sold for $20.21 on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock representing an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

Even worse, in order to reach the break-even point, the stock would have to sell for around $53 per share.The numbers remain in flux. As Investors Business Daily reveals, (http://news.investors.com/article/622168/201208141740/gm-costs-taxpayers-25-billion-dollars.htm) the Treasury Department continues “to revise upward the staggering losses inflicted on U.S. taxpayers.” They further note that the same day GM announced it was recalling 38,000 Impalas used by police in both America and Canada, due to a possible crash risk, a new Treasury report forecast that losses for GM were expected to reach $25 billion, which is $3.3 billion more than predicted earlier. Furthermore, since that report was based on GM’s stock price at the time of the report–15 percent higher than it is currently–those losses are likely understated.

David W Pratt
09-11-2012, 02:33 PM
Norman:
Actually my point was Obama's falsely claiming they were back at #1

TDSoren
09-11-2012, 03:06 PM
Sounds like you've never worked in a technology environment. I have, for the past nearly 40 years... and the most important thing for any technology business to do, when facing serious downturns, is to invest in new product development. As it happens, developing the next generation of vehicles is, by definition, a long term investment... but rather than not being able to afford to do it, you can't not be able to afford it, because it becomes the future. Had GM not participated in an electric car development, the critics would be slamming them for designing themselves into obsolescence. Survival, in the car business, DEMANDS it.

Just because some blithering idiot thinks that it's appropriate to assign the entire development cost of a vehicle to its first year sales doesn't mean that anyone with a working neuron and synapse should BUY that batsh|t aergument!



You got the wrong guy... I NEVER expected the gov't to 'make a profit' off of the auto bailout. I expected the gov't to help save a critical industry... and it did.

Case in point the Prius. Wonder what the development costs were initially, and what are they NOW per unit? How long did Toyota have the hybrid market sewn up with that car because they were ahead of everyone else with it?

An example from MY industry, HVAC. We invested $2,000.00 in training and @ $4,000.00 in equipment (per technician) for several people to begin doing BPI certified testing. This is the "whole house" energy analysis where instead of just looking at the boiler, furnace or heat pump, we test for house and duct leakage, evaluate ALL of the thermal barriers, and became full blown energy and comfort contractors as opposed to just furnace pushers.

We've actually grown @ 15% per year 2008-2011 while all of the more "conservative" HVAC companies have been shrinking. We invested in new technology in a depressed market to expand our market.

The fact that we're cutting energy usage in some homes as much as 50% on a REGULAR basis appeals to my tree hugging side as well, but that's just a bonus.

Tom Hunter
09-11-2012, 03:33 PM
"If anything is dumbass, it's spending 1.2 billion on development of a car when you are trying to emerge from bankruptcy."

In fact, they have to spend money to build new products, if they don't build a winning car then they are likely to be in trouble. If you read the analyst reports that is the big concern about GM, that they don't have a number one car for sale or in the near future. They mention cars like the Ford Fusion or the Toyota Camrey for comparison.

I have no particular faith that the US will make money, or not make money on the GM bailout. Given the economy at the time of the bailout letting them fail would have been a disaster of epic proportion. I think Obama made a gutsy decision on this one.

The reality is the jury is still out on the ROI of the GM bailout. Any claim to the contrary is speculation. The Forbes article makes a few good points about the current version of the Chevy Malibu, but it ignores the fact that GM is currently profitable and has $33 billion in cash on hand.

If you argue from facts there is no way to forecast what will happen to GM in the future, and no way to say if the bailout will have a positive or negative ROI for the government.

leikec
09-11-2012, 03:49 PM
GM failing (as in liquidating) would have been a complete disaster, and would have destroyed the American economy. Anyone who understands the auto industry can see this, and the people who think the American auto industry would have survived GM and Chrysler liquidating are kidding themselves.

Ford would never have survived without a bailout of GM and Chrysler. Ford was mortgaged to the hilt in an effort to restructure, and the supply chain meltdown (which would have occurred had GM and Chrysler liquidated) would have finished them.

Jeff C

Canoeyawl
09-11-2012, 03:57 PM
Clearly a reason for ignoring his saving the auto industry and eliminating Bin Laden and voting for the magic underwear guy.

I knew that he was born with a silver spoon, but a magic diaper too? Sheese...

Dan McCosh
09-11-2012, 05:19 PM
If anything is dumbass, it's spending 1.2 billion on development of a car when you are trying to emerge from bankruptcy. Your confidence that they will recoup this money will disappear as fast as your confidence that the US would actually make a profit on their GM shares. As I recall you were quite confident that the US (the largest shareholder in GM) would turn a profit on their shares, yet that is very unlikely at this point, and even a modest loss is a fools bet. Given some financial analysts conclusions, GM might not even exist in 5 years. The problem being that any car costs about $1 billion to develop. The only way you can cut these costs is to stop making them. The remainder is profits, I guess??? Might add that every new car loses a $1 billion or so when the first one is sold. You make it up in volume.

Concordia 33
09-12-2012, 08:46 AM
Case in point the Prius. Wonder what the development costs were initially, and what are they NOW per unit? How long did Toyota have the hybrid market sewn up with that car because they were ahead of everyone else with it?



Obviously one needs to spend money to make money. During the depression, the companies that tended to survive were the ones that increased their advertising budgets vs the ones that tried to cuts costs. However expenditure - especially from a company that defaulted on its stock obligations and is the recipient of a huge federal bailout has an obligation to spend its money wisely. The Volt is not the place to make this stand - it is an accommodation to a government (that wants to go "green") that bailed them out of their own fiscal mismanagement. If I mismanage my personal finances, should I be able to expect the government to cancel my debts and infuse some cash? Why should any business, by virtue of mismanagement, be more eligible for federal money than any other business or individual?




But overall, Chevy is still a long way from meeting its projected 45,000 target for this year, with year-to-date figures around the 13,500 mark.
And, says Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/uk-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUKBRE88904R20120910), GM (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/General+Motors+Corporation) could be losing as much as $49,000 on every Volt it makes.

Packed with technology, the Volt is an expensive car to make, and GM isn't making a great deal of money back on each one, despite the $39,995 base price. With some lease deals allowing customers to drive around in a Volt for as little as $5,050 over two years, GM's return looks insignificant.

High production costs, low sales

Some industry analysts predict that each Volt costs at least $75,000 to manufacture, though some suggest this figure could be as high as $88,000.

The numbers are compiled by industry experts likeMichigan (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Michigan)-based Automotive Consulting Group and Munro & Associates, and factor in the Volt's total development and tooling costs to date, divided among the 21,500 Volts sold to date.

So far, it puts average costs at just shy of $56,000 per car--though it's worth remembering that this figure will go down with every Volt sold, and unit production cost can only truly be calculated over the course of a full production run.

On top of the current unit cost, it's estimated that manufacturing cost for each car is between $20,000-$32,000 per vehicle, resulting in the final figures.

By contrast, the standard gasoline Chevrolet Cruze (http://www.greencarreports.com/overview/chevrolet_cruze_2013) is estimated to cost between $12,000-$15,000 to build. To bring the Volt down to around $10,000 per car to build, GM would have to sell around 120,000 per year--but in an effort to push up sales, the low-cost lease deals are part of the problem while volumes remain low.

ccmanuals
09-12-2012, 08:53 AM
Obviously one needs to spend money to make money. During the depression, the companies that tended to survive were the ones that increased their advertising budgets vs the ones that tried to cuts costs. However expenditure - especially from a company that defaulted on its stock obligations and is the recipient of a huge federal bailout has an obligation to spend its money wisely. The Volt is not the place to make this stand - it is an accommodation to a government (that wants to go "green") that bailed them out of their own fiscal mismanagement. If I mismanage my personal finances, should I be able to expect the government to cancel my debts and infuse some cash? Why should any business, by virtue of mismanagement, be more eligible for federal money than any other business or individual?


Would you say the same for oil, gas and agriculture subsidies and tax breaks? How about special tax subsidies for wealthy people?

Concordia 33
09-12-2012, 11:34 AM
Would you say the same for oil, gas and agriculture subsidies and tax breaks? How about special tax subsidies for wealthy people?

Yes if the federal government is creating legislation to underwrite the incompetence of the business in question. If you are not receiving a bailout and you accept the consequences of your spending then you are free to do as you choose.

Lew Barrett
09-12-2012, 12:07 PM
The problem being that any car costs about $1 billion to develop. The only way you can cut these costs is to stop making them. The remainder is profits, I guess??? Might add that every new car loses a $1 billion or so when the first one is sold. You make it up in volume.

Beat me to it. The Volt, regardless if it is a winner in the long run, is the kind of development mule that companies have to invest in to stay current. Not investing in new technologies was perhaps the complaint you could level at the autos in the bad old days. GM has some fierce competitors and to survive, they will need to compete and be in the game.

Is this kind of stuff the best they've got to throw at Obama? Four words?

GM is not showing incompetence with their new products. The new Vette competes and punches way over it's weight, and the Cruze is a good car; just as the new Caddys are showing to be.

I'd buy one.