slowdown's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/300222/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/158979/comments?source=feed#comment-655232 655232

On Aug 30 10:25 AM Clean CNG Vehicles wrote:

> I hear alot but I don't see much - What are you doing?
> The transportation sector (particularly cars, trucks, and buses)
> is one of the greatest contributors to air pollution in the United
> States.
> What is your company doing to improve Air Pollution from your vehicles
> and more important, what is your company doing to Wien yourself off
> of imported oil? To you use or plan to use Hybrid, CNG, etc., if
> so what and when.
>
> Emissions from vehicles contribute to smog, low visibility, and various
> greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Department of Energy (seekingalpha.com/symbo...),
> about half of all air pollution and more than 80 percent of air pollution
> in cities are produced by cars and trucks in the United States.
>
>
> I'm conducting a survey at cleancngvehicle.org/ if you would
> be so kind as to visit the website and complete the survey, I would
> appreciate it.
>
> Thank you
> Mike]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:47:47 -0400

On Aug 30 10:25 AM Clean CNG Vehicles wrote:

> I hear alot but I don't see much - What are you doing?
> The transportation sector (particularly cars, trucks, and buses)
> is one of the greatest contributors to air pollution in the United
> States.
> What is your company doing to improve Air Pollution from your vehicles
> and more important, what is your company doing to Wien yourself off
> of imported oil? To you use or plan to use Hybrid, CNG, etc., if
> so what and when.
>
> Emissions from vehicles contribute to smog, low visibility, and various
> greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Department of Energy (seekingalpha.com/symbo...),
> about half of all air pollution and more than 80 percent of air pollution
> in cities are produced by cars and trucks in the United States.
>
>
> I'm conducting a survey at cleancngvehicle.org/ if you would
> be so kind as to visit the website and complete the survey, I would
> appreciate it.
>
> Thank you
> Mike]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158979/comments?source=feed#comment-655230 655230

On Aug 30 10:25 AM Clean CNG Vehicles wrote:

> I hear alot but I don't see much - What are you doing?
> The transportation sector (particularly cars, trucks, and buses)
> is one of the greatest contributors to air pollution in the United
> States.
> What is your company doing to improve Air Pollution from your vehicles
> and more important, what is your company doing to Wien yourself off
> of imported oil? To you use or plan to use Hybrid, CNG, etc., if
> so what and when.
>
> Emissions from vehicles contribute to smog, low visibility, and various
> greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Department of Energy (seekingalpha.com/symbo...),
> about half of all air pollution and more than 80 percent of air pollution
> in cities are produced by cars and trucks in the United States.
>
>
> I'm conducting a survey at CleanCNGVehicle.org if you would
> be so kind as to visit the website and complete the survey, I would
> appreciate it.
>
> Thank you
> Mike]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:45:41 -0400

On Aug 30 10:25 AM Clean CNG Vehicles wrote:

> I hear alot but I don't see much - What are you doing?
> The transportation sector (particularly cars, trucks, and buses)
> is one of the greatest contributors to air pollution in the United
> States.
> What is your company doing to improve Air Pollution from your vehicles
> and more important, what is your company doing to Wien yourself off
> of imported oil? To you use or plan to use Hybrid, CNG, etc., if
> so what and when.
>
> Emissions from vehicles contribute to smog, low visibility, and various
> greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Department of Energy (seekingalpha.com/symbo...),
> about half of all air pollution and more than 80 percent of air pollution
> in cities are produced by cars and trucks in the United States.
>
>
> I'm conducting a survey at CleanCNGVehicle.org if you would
> be so kind as to visit the website and complete the survey, I would
> appreciate it.
>
> Thank you
> Mike]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148155/comments?source=feed#comment-583151 583151 You haven't been following the story....Ford was able to stay afloat because they mortgaged everything and I mean everything...they are living on borrowed money and have been. Great for them. I'm glad that they didn't have to borrow money from the FED's. At some point they are going to be in the same boat as GM was because they have huge debt that the new lower sales volume won't support and they still have the legacy costs that GM has shed. Sales will never regain to the level they were a few years ago because we all took huge hits to our annual household incomes. This is far from over. You don't want to buy a GM product because the Fed decided to save the country from something worse then what has already happened??? Fine...don't...but at the very least buy a Ford while they are still free of your ownership.

On Jul 10 05:43 PM kohalakid wrote:

> Gee, don't get all huffy.
>
> I didn't say anything about Japan being better. Maybe you need to
> learn to understand written words. I'd gladly buy a Ford. The quality
> of Ford products is now close to if not better than many foreign
> brands.
>
> My complaint is with the way the government threw billions of dollars
> of taxpayer money at an inefficient company that couldn't fix itself.
> Ford has been able to make those changes without handouts from the
> American taxpayer.
>
> GM and Chrysler should have had to figure it out on their own, with
> the employees, shareholders, creditors and bondholders all fixing
> their problem without all the political crap that was involved and
> will follow.
>
> ]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:54:25 -0400 You haven't been following the story....Ford was able to stay afloat because they mortgaged everything and I mean everything...they are living on borrowed money and have been. Great for them. I'm glad that they didn't have to borrow money from the FED's. At some point they are going to be in the same boat as GM was because they have huge debt that the new lower sales volume won't support and they still have the legacy costs that GM has shed. Sales will never regain to the level they were a few years ago because we all took huge hits to our annual household incomes. This is far from over. You don't want to buy a GM product because the Fed decided to save the country from something worse then what has already happened??? Fine...don't...but at the very least buy a Ford while they are still free of your ownership.

On Jul 10 05:43 PM kohalakid wrote:

> Gee, don't get all huffy.
>
> I didn't say anything about Japan being better. Maybe you need to
> learn to understand written words. I'd gladly buy a Ford. The quality
> of Ford products is now close to if not better than many foreign
> brands.
>
> My complaint is with the way the government threw billions of dollars
> of taxpayer money at an inefficient company that couldn't fix itself.
> Ford has been able to make those changes without handouts from the
> American taxpayer.
>
> GM and Chrysler should have had to figure it out on their own, with
> the employees, shareholders, creditors and bondholders all fixing
> their problem without all the political crap that was involved and
> will follow.
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148155/comments?source=feed#comment-583146 583146

On Jul 10 04:55 PM kohalakid wrote:

> I would not own a GM vehicle even if it was 25% cheaper than other
> brands.
>
> The whole GM episode was an insult to the American taxpayer.]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:38:34 -0400

On Jul 10 04:55 PM kohalakid wrote:

> I would not own a GM vehicle even if it was 25% cheaper than other
> brands.
>
> The whole GM episode was an insult to the American taxpayer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147324/comments?source=feed#comment-578836 578836 My sons graduate from college this year with four-year degrees. They will earn a starting salary of around $40k per year. They will likely have health care but no pensions..so will have to put money away for old age…ideally…10% of their income. They will have to be “do it yourselfers” just as their Grandfathers and Fathers were/are.

We will be retiring or forced into lower paying jobs in the next few years (yes age discrimination is alive and well in this country). We will go back to being “do it yourselfers” (personally…we already are) due to income limitations.

That said – the bulk of the population will be purchasing one vehicle that can:
- Haul two adults, two kids, the family dog, the travel trailer or camping equipment and the fishing boat (the days of hotels and flights are over – we go back to camping).
- Carry a payload or pull a trailer capable of hauling everything from lumber to bricks (these young kids are buying small starter homes that need repairs and so are we).

For those that need two vehicles, the second will likely be a cheap driver that will get one person back and forth to work. The average person will commute to work or live and work in small rural communities. Like myself – my kids and their friends, view living in big city trappings as unattractive, dangerous, unhealthy, too confined and far, far too expensive.

So…what’s the intent here. As far as I can tell…these cars will be too expensive to own and operate for the average family and they will not meet their needs. I really want an answer because from my spot in the back seat…we are heading down the wrong path. If the intent is to force a change to my lifestyle – I’m getting back in the driver seat and my answer is – NO!
You all need to go back to the drawing board. And this time…instead of waiting for some other country to figure out the answer for us…start working on the solution ourselves. Since our household incomes have been dramatically reduced – the solution needs to be a low cost alternative fuel that allows us to maintain our previous standard of living. From everything I have read – the electric vehicle isn’t it. ]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:44:18 -0400 My sons graduate from college this year with four-year degrees. They will earn a starting salary of around $40k per year. They will likely have health care but no pensions..so will have to put money away for old age…ideally…10% of their income. They will have to be “do it yourselfers” just as their Grandfathers and Fathers were/are.

We will be retiring or forced into lower paying jobs in the next few years (yes age discrimination is alive and well in this country). We will go back to being “do it yourselfers” (personally…we already are) due to income limitations.

That said – the bulk of the population will be purchasing one vehicle that can:
- Haul two adults, two kids, the family dog, the travel trailer or camping equipment and the fishing boat (the days of hotels and flights are over – we go back to camping).
- Carry a payload or pull a trailer capable of hauling everything from lumber to bricks (these young kids are buying small starter homes that need repairs and so are we).

For those that need two vehicles, the second will likely be a cheap driver that will get one person back and forth to work. The average person will commute to work or live and work in small rural communities. Like myself – my kids and their friends, view living in big city trappings as unattractive, dangerous, unhealthy, too confined and far, far too expensive.

So…what’s the intent here. As far as I can tell…these cars will be too expensive to own and operate for the average family and they will not meet their needs. I really want an answer because from my spot in the back seat…we are heading down the wrong path. If the intent is to force a change to my lifestyle – I’m getting back in the driver seat and my answer is – NO!
You all need to go back to the drawing board. And this time…instead of waiting for some other country to figure out the answer for us…start working on the solution ourselves. Since our household incomes have been dramatically reduced – the solution needs to be a low cost alternative fuel that allows us to maintain our previous standard of living. From everything I have read – the electric vehicle isn’t it. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147158/comments?source=feed#comment-576115 576115 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:10:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/147158/comments?source=feed#comment-576102 576102

On Jul 06 10:32 AM lars wrote:

> 100% Agree'd. The larger issue here is that ~50% of Americans (those
> of us in the U.S.) have some how been blinded into thinking that
> our society needs government intervention and policy around it. We
> are rapidly drifting from our free-market principles, thus our freedom.
> Why should the "tax payer" be "forced" into doing anything by the
> government? That is what should be on the minds of all free-thinking
> citizens of this country. Socialist tactics will be the doom of this
> once great nation.]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:59:58 -0400

On Jul 06 10:32 AM lars wrote:

> 100% Agree'd. The larger issue here is that ~50% of Americans (those
> of us in the U.S.) have some how been blinded into thinking that
> our society needs government intervention and policy around it. We
> are rapidly drifting from our free-market principles, thus our freedom.
> Why should the "tax payer" be "forced" into doing anything by the
> government? That is what should be on the minds of all free-thinking
> citizens of this country. Socialist tactics will be the doom of this
> once great nation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147066/comments?source=feed#comment-576076 576076

On Jul 06 10:40 AM Leftfield wrote:

> slowdown: If we could all take back half our income taxes, last 30
> years, or better yet, not pay for all that government waste in the
> first place, this country would still be #1. I believe primarily
> it's lawyers and government that have nearly destroyed this country
> more than anyone else. I think that getting government and lawyers
> out of the way would lower the stupid legal, tax and regulatory burdens
> to restore us to the great way of life we have largely lost in the
> last 40 years. When one earner could support a family better than
> two can now.
> If we created low-tax and regulatory enterprise zones in distressed
> areas like Flint and Detroit the example of prosperity created would
> disrobe the stupid pretensions of our overpaid leaders who would
> rather take over GM and make it part of their crony capitalism schemes.
>
> We need to wake up and vote out our failed incumbents over and over
> even if they seem to be giving some of us handouts so we can get
> back on our feet again.]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:34:31 -0400

On Jul 06 10:40 AM Leftfield wrote:

> slowdown: If we could all take back half our income taxes, last 30
> years, or better yet, not pay for all that government waste in the
> first place, this country would still be #1. I believe primarily
> it's lawyers and government that have nearly destroyed this country
> more than anyone else. I think that getting government and lawyers
> out of the way would lower the stupid legal, tax and regulatory burdens
> to restore us to the great way of life we have largely lost in the
> last 40 years. When one earner could support a family better than
> two can now.
> If we created low-tax and regulatory enterprise zones in distressed
> areas like Flint and Detroit the example of prosperity created would
> disrobe the stupid pretensions of our overpaid leaders who would
> rather take over GM and make it part of their crony capitalism schemes.
>
> We need to wake up and vote out our failed incumbents over and over
> even if they seem to be giving some of us handouts so we can get
> back on our feet again.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147066/comments?source=feed#comment-576072 576072 By whom???? Last I knew (and since it is one of my plants) the Springhill plant is a UAW plant earning the same wages that a plant in Michigan earns.

On Jul 06 11:37 AM relaplan1 wrote:


> A lot better cars are made in Tennessee.
>
> ]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:33:05 -0400 By whom???? Last I knew (and since it is one of my plants) the Springhill plant is a UAW plant earning the same wages that a plant in Michigan earns.

On Jul 06 11:37 AM relaplan1 wrote:


> A lot better cars are made in Tennessee.
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147066/comments?source=feed#comment-575474 575474

On Jul 06 09:21 AM Leftfield wrote:

> A quick word for User 158164: We are in an advanced state of dying
> by a thousand cuts. Take the Depts. of Energy and Education. After
> the "stimulous" bill is factored in, they total well north of $100
> billion this year. They have accomplished nothing towards their stated
> goals and in fact hinder the progress that could be made if their
> wasted employees would get productive jobs and the money went towards
> real accomplishment and investment. Our system is choking on this
> stuff; these are only two examples.
> GM is now in the purview of the real impresarios of smoke and mirrors.
> These are suits who always have "plausible deniability" for their
> wealth-destroying, self-serving deeds. Rick Waggoner's last stupid
> act was not to proceed to bankruptcy. Now GM is a ward of government,
> I know, all decisions are "for the good of the country" or whatever
> the party line is. As they are increasingly perceived as Government
> Motors they will sell mostly to government and to government and
> union employees. But we will still pay. Yuck.]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:03:56 -0400

On Jul 06 09:21 AM Leftfield wrote:

> A quick word for User 158164: We are in an advanced state of dying
> by a thousand cuts. Take the Depts. of Energy and Education. After
> the "stimulous" bill is factored in, they total well north of $100
> billion this year. They have accomplished nothing towards their stated
> goals and in fact hinder the progress that could be made if their
> wasted employees would get productive jobs and the money went towards
> real accomplishment and investment. Our system is choking on this
> stuff; these are only two examples.
> GM is now in the purview of the real impresarios of smoke and mirrors.
> These are suits who always have "plausible deniability" for their
> wealth-destroying, self-serving deeds. Rick Waggoner's last stupid
> act was not to proceed to bankruptcy. Now GM is a ward of government,
> I know, all decisions are "for the good of the country" or whatever
> the party line is. As they are increasingly perceived as Government
> Motors they will sell mostly to government and to government and
> union employees. But we will still pay. Yuck.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147066/comments?source=feed#comment-575465 575465

On Jul 06 09:21 AM Leftfield wrote:

> A quick word for User 158164: We are in an advanced state of dying
> by a thousand cuts. Take the Depts. of Energy and Education. After
> the "stimulous" bill is factored in, they total well north of $100
> billion this year. They have accomplished nothing towards their stated
> goals and in fact hinder the progress that could be made if their
> wasted employees would get productive jobs and the money went towards
> real accomplishment and investment. Our system is choking on this
> stuff; these are only two examples.
> GM is now in the purview of the real impresarios of smoke and mirrors.
> These are suits who always have "plausible deniability" for their
> wealth-destroying, self-serving deeds. Rick Waggoner's last stupid
> act was not to proceed to bankruptcy. Now GM is a ward of government,
> I know, all decisions are "for the good of the country" or whatever
> the party line is. As they are increasingly perceived as Government
> Motors they will sell mostly to government and to government and
> union employees. But we will still pay. Yuck.]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:59:16 -0400

On Jul 06 09:21 AM Leftfield wrote:

> A quick word for User 158164: We are in an advanced state of dying
> by a thousand cuts. Take the Depts. of Energy and Education. After
> the "stimulous" bill is factored in, they total well north of $100
> billion this year. They have accomplished nothing towards their stated
> goals and in fact hinder the progress that could be made if their
> wasted employees would get productive jobs and the money went towards
> real accomplishment and investment. Our system is choking on this
> stuff; these are only two examples.
> GM is now in the purview of the real impresarios of smoke and mirrors.
> These are suits who always have "plausible deniability" for their
> wealth-destroying, self-serving deeds. Rick Waggoner's last stupid
> act was not to proceed to bankruptcy. Now GM is a ward of government,
> I know, all decisions are "for the good of the country" or whatever
> the party line is. As they are increasingly perceived as Government
> Motors they will sell mostly to government and to government and
> union employees. But we will still pay. Yuck.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146677/comments?source=feed#comment-574140 574140

On Jul 04 08:49 AM casey00001 wrote:

> In the Old GM all the investors and bondholders got screwed. In the
> new GM the taxpayers got screwed.]]> Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:22:40 -0400

On Jul 04 08:49 AM casey00001 wrote:

> In the Old GM all the investors and bondholders got screwed. In the
> new GM the taxpayers got screwed.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145645/comments?source=feed#comment-565260 565260

On Jun 27 05:28 PM JAY BOSLIN wrote:

> You are an accountant, Cliff, remember that. While I can't stand
> GM cars (and I've owned a few) specifically, and american cars generally,
> this time it IS different. Toyota veered right down the same road
> with their own 5+ litre vehicles chasing $ from dumb americans. Toyota
> has problems too.
>
> GM, F and C always went for the easy money because it was so easy
> taking money Republicans (as you say, conservatives) and from younger
> people who thought muscle cars were good cars. Old, fat, rich guys
> now pay hundreds of thousands for those "classics."
>
> Europe and Japan always made BETTER cars and that was their goal
> EVERY single year--not different fenders, BETTER cars.
>
> Now GM, shorn of massive debt and without Rick Wagner and his incompetent
> Board, know what has to be done, will put real car people in place
> and WILL turn it around.]]> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:46:38 -0400

On Jun 27 05:28 PM JAY BOSLIN wrote:

> You are an accountant, Cliff, remember that. While I can't stand
> GM cars (and I've owned a few) specifically, and american cars generally,
> this time it IS different. Toyota veered right down the same road
> with their own 5+ litre vehicles chasing $ from dumb americans. Toyota
> has problems too.
>
> GM, F and C always went for the easy money because it was so easy
> taking money Republicans (as you say, conservatives) and from younger
> people who thought muscle cars were good cars. Old, fat, rich guys
> now pay hundreds of thousands for those "classics."
>
> Europe and Japan always made BETTER cars and that was their goal
> EVERY single year--not different fenders, BETTER cars.
>
> Now GM, shorn of massive debt and without Rick Wagner and his incompetent
> Board, know what has to be done, will put real car people in place
> and WILL turn it around.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145645/comments?source=feed#comment-565254 565254 I remember my Grandfather telling me a story about gas being very expensive when he and his brothers were young. They couldn’t afford to put gas in the car they had so they used kerosene instead until the price of gas came back down. What they didn’t do was buy a small tin can on wheels…just like today. ]]> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:37:46 -0400 I remember my Grandfather telling me a story about gas being very expensive when he and his brothers were young. They couldn’t afford to put gas in the car they had so they used kerosene instead until the price of gas came back down. What they didn’t do was buy a small tin can on wheels…just like today. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145623/comments?source=feed#comment-565240 565240

On Jun 26 04:07 PM Mister Jimmy wrote:

> "Too Dirty Even for the Chinese"? Why is it OK to disparage a race
> of people in that manner?]]> Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:30:56 -0400

On Jun 26 04:07 PM Mister Jimmy wrote:

> "Too Dirty Even for the Chinese"? Why is it OK to disparage a race
> of people in that manner?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144889/comments?source=feed#comment-561376 561376

On Jun 24 08:41 AM Stephen Metzger wrote:

> It is depressing to see the ignorance of many of the respondents
> to Mr. Brouwer's article. His example of California vs. Michigan
> is meant to describe the economic benefits of trade and they, as
> he says, are fully applicable to international trade. You cannot
> hide this fact by saying the difference is that we are Americans
> and those others are "fereners". Trade restrictions only benefit
> special interests, placate the ignorant, and lower living standards.
> And, Mr. Brouwer is also right in comparing current trends with those
> of the 1930s. We are repeating the same mistakes of that decade in
> both domestic and international policy. Of course, we have a President
> who has little understanding, much less appreciation of American
> history--even recent history. (Nothing important occurred until he
> was born, and even then, some very unimportant things happened, because
> he was only nine years old.)]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:46:19 -0400

On Jun 24 08:41 AM Stephen Metzger wrote:

> It is depressing to see the ignorance of many of the respondents
> to Mr. Brouwer's article. His example of California vs. Michigan
> is meant to describe the economic benefits of trade and they, as
> he says, are fully applicable to international trade. You cannot
> hide this fact by saying the difference is that we are Americans
> and those others are "fereners". Trade restrictions only benefit
> special interests, placate the ignorant, and lower living standards.
> And, Mr. Brouwer is also right in comparing current trends with those
> of the 1930s. We are repeating the same mistakes of that decade in
> both domestic and international policy. Of course, we have a President
> who has little understanding, much less appreciation of American
> history--even recent history. (Nothing important occurred until he
> was born, and even then, some very unimportant things happened, because
> he was only nine years old.)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144477/comments?source=feed#comment-559938 559938

On Jun 23 11:44 PM buddhabill wrote:

> Toyota expects to sell 160k Prius' this year. What's the projection
> for the $40,000 hybrid pick-up? 20k?
>
> It's a nice 'halo' product that did nothing to keep GM from bankruptcy.
>
>
> How many EV1's could have they sold? Or hybrid Cobalts?
>
> GM once had the clout to push product through their 7000 dealerships
> - with some leadership they could have been ahead of the whole EV/Hybrid
> thing....that is the real crime.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:18:33 -0400

On Jun 23 11:44 PM buddhabill wrote:

> Toyota expects to sell 160k Prius' this year. What's the projection
> for the $40,000 hybrid pick-up? 20k?
>
> It's a nice 'halo' product that did nothing to keep GM from bankruptcy.
>
>
> How many EV1's could have they sold? Or hybrid Cobalts?
>
> GM once had the clout to push product through their 7000 dealerships
> - with some leadership they could have been ahead of the whole EV/Hybrid
> thing....that is the real crime.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144477/comments?source=feed#comment-559933 559933

On Jun 23 02:36 PM Pstoneki wrote:

> I would agree that Japan taxes imports heavily. So does the US. However,
> the Japanese sell very few of their own models sold in external markets
> in Japan. It is very expensive to buy a car in Japan, even a Japanese-built
> car, due to parking requirements / permiting, insurance, and their
> very draconian vehicle inspection rules. Size is also a big issue
> - most cars sold in Japan are much smaller than the Japanese cars
> built for non-Japan markets.
>
> American cars just don't sell in Japan. They are too American in
> style, too big, the driver sits on the wrong side, the engines are
> too large and inefficient, the engineering / features are not in
> tune with the Japanese market, and the 'quality' is not there. Remember,
> every country has a different definition of quality so what the Japanese
> (or any other market) finds important may not be 'quality' in another
> market. For instance, a car with a pillowy ride and light steering
> is not considered high quality in Europe. However, in the US it is.
>
>
> If GM made an effort to engineer and sell cars in Japan they could
> do it. Just look at what they have been able to do with Buick in
> China. They just have chosen not to.
>
> Japanese cars do not seem to sell well in China. My experience working
> in China is that they have a very strong memory of Japanese atrocities
> on Chinese soil (see Nanking) and this has hurt Nissan, Toyota, and
> Honda. And has helped GM/Buick.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:12:34 -0400

On Jun 23 02:36 PM Pstoneki wrote:

> I would agree that Japan taxes imports heavily. So does the US. However,
> the Japanese sell very few of their own models sold in external markets
> in Japan. It is very expensive to buy a car in Japan, even a Japanese-built
> car, due to parking requirements / permiting, insurance, and their
> very draconian vehicle inspection rules. Size is also a big issue
> - most cars sold in Japan are much smaller than the Japanese cars
> built for non-Japan markets.
>
> American cars just don't sell in Japan. They are too American in
> style, too big, the driver sits on the wrong side, the engines are
> too large and inefficient, the engineering / features are not in
> tune with the Japanese market, and the 'quality' is not there. Remember,
> every country has a different definition of quality so what the Japanese
> (or any other market) finds important may not be 'quality' in another
> market. For instance, a car with a pillowy ride and light steering
> is not considered high quality in Europe. However, in the US it is.
>
>
> If GM made an effort to engineer and sell cars in Japan they could
> do it. Just look at what they have been able to do with Buick in
> China. They just have chosen not to.
>
> Japanese cars do not seem to sell well in China. My experience working
> in China is that they have a very strong memory of Japanese atrocities
> on Chinese soil (see Nanking) and this has hurt Nissan, Toyota, and
> Honda. And has helped GM/Buick.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144477/comments?source=feed#comment-559932 559932

On Jun 23 02:36 PM Pstoneki wrote:

> I would agree that Japan taxes imports heavily. So does the US. However,
> the Japanese sell very few of their own models sold in external markets
> in Japan. It is very expensive to buy a car in Japan, even a Japanese-built
> car, due to parking requirements / permiting, insurance, and their
> very draconian vehicle inspection rules. Size is also a big issue
> - most cars sold in Japan are much smaller than the Japanese cars
> built for non-Japan markets.
>
> American cars just don't sell in Japan. They are too American in
> style, too big, the driver sits on the wrong side, the engines are
> too large and inefficient, the engineering / features are not in
> tune with the Japanese market, and the 'quality' is not there. Remember,
> every country has a different definition of quality so what the Japanese
> (or any other market) finds important may not be 'quality' in another
> market. For instance, a car with a pillowy ride and light steering
> is not considered high quality in Europe. However, in the US it is.
>
>
> If GM made an effort to engineer and sell cars in Japan they could
> do it. Just look at what they have been able to do with Buick in
> China. They just have chosen not to.
>
> Japanese cars do not seem to sell well in China. My experience working
> in China is that they have a very strong memory of Japanese atrocities
> on Chinese soil (see Nanking) and this has hurt Nissan, Toyota, and
> Honda. And has helped GM/Buick.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:12:30 -0400

On Jun 23 02:36 PM Pstoneki wrote:

> I would agree that Japan taxes imports heavily. So does the US. However,
> the Japanese sell very few of their own models sold in external markets
> in Japan. It is very expensive to buy a car in Japan, even a Japanese-built
> car, due to parking requirements / permiting, insurance, and their
> very draconian vehicle inspection rules. Size is also a big issue
> - most cars sold in Japan are much smaller than the Japanese cars
> built for non-Japan markets.
>
> American cars just don't sell in Japan. They are too American in
> style, too big, the driver sits on the wrong side, the engines are
> too large and inefficient, the engineering / features are not in
> tune with the Japanese market, and the 'quality' is not there. Remember,
> every country has a different definition of quality so what the Japanese
> (or any other market) finds important may not be 'quality' in another
> market. For instance, a car with a pillowy ride and light steering
> is not considered high quality in Europe. However, in the US it is.
>
>
> If GM made an effort to engineer and sell cars in Japan they could
> do it. Just look at what they have been able to do with Buick in
> China. They just have chosen not to.
>
> Japanese cars do not seem to sell well in China. My experience working
> in China is that they have a very strong memory of Japanese atrocities
> on Chinese soil (see Nanking) and this has hurt Nissan, Toyota, and
> Honda. And has helped GM/Buick.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144477/comments?source=feed#comment-559924 559924

On Jun 22 09:16 PM KIT wrote:

>
> The Japanese drive on the other side of the road like the British.
> They switch the drivers wheel to our side on export cars. I know
> of no American car built to left side drive for the japanese market.
> How many Toyotas would sell in America if they refused to build cars
> for our roads?]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:57:15 -0400

On Jun 22 09:16 PM KIT wrote:

>
> The Japanese drive on the other side of the road like the British.
> They switch the drivers wheel to our side on export cars. I know
> of no American car built to left side drive for the japanese market.
> How many Toyotas would sell in America if they refused to build cars
> for our roads?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144889/comments?source=feed#comment-559915 559915 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:44:20 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/144889/comments?source=feed#comment-559911 559911


On Jun 23 08:08 PM your_financial_plan wrote:

>
> no economic improvement anytime soon'....
>
> 1st 100 days - There are 2.9 million more people unemployed in May
> than there were unemployed in January. The unemployment rate went
> from 7.6% to 9.4%.
> Since May 2008, we have lost 5.5 million jobs. The biggest losers
> were:
> Manufacturing 1.5 million lost
> Finance & Prof Serv 1.5 million lost
> Construction 1.1 million lost
> Retail & Leisure 1.3 million lost
>
> good articles... investmintideas.blogsp.../]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:38:44 -0400


On Jun 23 08:08 PM your_financial_plan wrote:

>
> no economic improvement anytime soon'....
>
> 1st 100 days - There are 2.9 million more people unemployed in May
> than there were unemployed in January. The unemployment rate went
> from 7.6% to 9.4%.
> Since May 2008, we have lost 5.5 million jobs. The biggest losers
> were:
> Manufacturing 1.5 million lost
> Finance & Prof Serv 1.5 million lost
> Construction 1.1 million lost
> Retail & Leisure 1.3 million lost
>
> good articles... investmintideas.blogsp.../]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144477/comments?source=feed#comment-559261 559261

On Jun 23 10:10 AM Pstoneki wrote:

> Who cares what the Mexican's make? Their cost of living is much lower
> than the US. After all, they don't have a need to buy a big fishing
> boat, snow machines, 4 wheelers, and a giant truck to pull them around
> like most of the Big 3 assembly folks I know. Apples to oranges comparison.
> Let's face it - we pay unskilled trades a lot of money when, often,
> the complexity of the work does not warrant it. I've worked on the
> line in several GM plants. Beyond the mind-numbing boredom induced
> by doing the same thing every day the job was not hard and did not
> require any advanced education. We should be paying people based
> on the unique skills they bring to the job and the value they add
> to a process.]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:23:43 -0400

On Jun 23 10:10 AM Pstoneki wrote:

> Who cares what the Mexican's make? Their cost of living is much lower
> than the US. After all, they don't have a need to buy a big fishing
> boat, snow machines, 4 wheelers, and a giant truck to pull them around
> like most of the Big 3 assembly folks I know. Apples to oranges comparison.
> Let's face it - we pay unskilled trades a lot of money when, often,
> the complexity of the work does not warrant it. I've worked on the
> line in several GM plants. Beyond the mind-numbing boredom induced
> by doing the same thing every day the job was not hard and did not
> require any advanced education. We should be paying people based
> on the unique skills they bring to the job and the value they add
> to a process.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144477/comments?source=feed#comment-559250 559250

On Jun 22 11:29 AM Pstoneki wrote:

> The Japanese buy very few American cars. Why? THE QUALITY. Their
> expectations are much much higher than the American consumers. When
> I worked for Nissan I used to visit dealerships in Japan. I watched
> every (and I mean every) customer examine every single detail of
> the particular car they were buying, down to how parallel the defroster
> element wires in the back window were. If the car was not absolutely
> perfect in every way they wouldn't buy it. Find me an GM/Ford/Chrysler
> car that can pass that kind of test.]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:13:13 -0400

On Jun 22 11:29 AM Pstoneki wrote:

> The Japanese buy very few American cars. Why? THE QUALITY. Their
> expectations are much much higher than the American consumers. When
> I worked for Nissan I used to visit dealerships in Japan. I watched
> every (and I mean every) customer examine every single detail of
> the particular car they were buying, down to how parallel the defroster
> element wires in the back window were. If the car was not absolutely
> perfect in every way they wouldn't buy it. Find me an GM/Ford/Chrysler
> car that can pass that kind of test.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144399/comments?source=feed#comment-556847 556847 Oh please...my husbands GMC 2003 pickup just rolled over 80k and it's never been in the repair shop until this week to put new tires on it...yes...he got 80,000 out of his tires...because he takes care of his vehicles and drives responsibly. My son's 1998 S-10 pickkup...also never in the repair shop and had 140k when we sold it last year...and thats after four years of a teenager driving it and it was a stick. The fact is...that my family has driven either Ford's or GM and very rarely have any of us had any problems with them. The 2003 replaced a 1994 that we bought new in '93...never in the repair shop except to have the windshield replaced. Then there's my brother with his Ford F150...his wife drives it now because she lost her company car and it was time for him to get a new on...also a '94...with 248k on it. The fact of the matter is...I drive 52 miles one way to work every day and I can tell you that I see just as many transplants on the side of the road as I do domestic.

On Jun 21 05:40 PM Jann Lee wrote:

> Show me an American car that is more reliable than a Japanese car.There
> isn't one.70k miles if you are lucky before the countless trips to
> the repair shop start.]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:19:40 -0400 Oh please...my husbands GMC 2003 pickup just rolled over 80k and it's never been in the repair shop until this week to put new tires on it...yes...he got 80,000 out of his tires...because he takes care of his vehicles and drives responsibly. My son's 1998 S-10 pickkup...also never in the repair shop and had 140k when we sold it last year...and thats after four years of a teenager driving it and it was a stick. The fact is...that my family has driven either Ford's or GM and very rarely have any of us had any problems with them. The 2003 replaced a 1994 that we bought new in '93...never in the repair shop except to have the windshield replaced. Then there's my brother with his Ford F150...his wife drives it now because she lost her company car and it was time for him to get a new on...also a '94...with 248k on it. The fact of the matter is...I drive 52 miles one way to work every day and I can tell you that I see just as many transplants on the side of the road as I do domestic.

On Jun 21 05:40 PM Jann Lee wrote:

> Show me an American car that is more reliable than a Japanese car.There
> isn't one.70k miles if you are lucky before the countless trips to
> the repair shop start.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144399/comments?source=feed#comment-556432 556432

On Jun 21 11:31 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> better idea -
> you have to renew your state license plate annually & states
> need the revenue. epa 'estimated' gas guzzling for each make, model,
> year is a matter of record. just have the states put a surtax on
> your annual bill - none for 30 mpg, lots for 11 mpg. the 389 pontiac
> i used to drive would suffer greatly.]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:50:34 -0400

On Jun 21 11:31 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> better idea -
> you have to renew your state license plate annually & states
> need the revenue. epa 'estimated' gas guzzling for each make, model,
> year is a matter of record. just have the states put a surtax on
> your annual bill - none for 30 mpg, lots for 11 mpg. the 389 pontiac
> i used to drive would suffer greatly.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144399/comments?source=feed#comment-556427 556427

On Jun 21 03:15 PM TinyTim wrote:

> Instead of the lieu tax that many states have which taxes the value
> of cars annually at registration (so new cars cot much more to register),
> vehicle taxes should be based on the age of the car. The older the
> car, the higher the tax. The Japanese have been doing this for years
> for environmental reasons and to promote new car buying.]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:45:19 -0400

On Jun 21 03:15 PM TinyTim wrote:

> Instead of the lieu tax that many states have which taxes the value
> of cars annually at registration (so new cars cot much more to register),
> vehicle taxes should be based on the age of the car. The older the
> car, the higher the tax. The Japanese have been doing this for years
> for environmental reasons and to promote new car buying.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144399/comments?source=feed#comment-556425 556425 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:43:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/144216/comments?source=feed#comment-556137 556137 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:32:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/144216/comments?source=feed#comment-556110 556110

On Jun 20 08:36 PM a. palmer jr. wrote:

> American car companies TOLD us that we were building cars that we
> wanted. Their ads were fabulous! Now, really, do you really prefer
> that big, ugly, SUV with 4 wheel drive that you don't need in town
> that guzzles gas that you can't afford? I know I don't. American
> car companies were fleecing us by selling us what they wanted us
> to have, which was the most profitable thing for them. That they
> squandered all that money is another story.]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:18:33 -0400

On Jun 20 08:36 PM a. palmer jr. wrote:

> American car companies TOLD us that we were building cars that we
> wanted. Their ads were fabulous! Now, really, do you really prefer
> that big, ugly, SUV with 4 wheel drive that you don't need in town
> that guzzles gas that you can't afford? I know I don't. American
> car companies were fleecing us by selling us what they wanted us
> to have, which was the most profitable thing for them. That they
> squandered all that money is another story.]]>