Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

The Wall Street Journal, 22 October 2008.

Joe Gwinn

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

Congress: The icking fudiots we love to hate.

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

Congress: The icking fudiots we love to hate.

What makes you think he's right?

He has a narrow and jaundiced view of the Wagner Act (we give a right for
individual investors to organize into limited-liability corporations and to
bargain with employees -- why not give the same right to employees? Adam
Smith's idea of capitalism, which is what we supposedly adhere to today,
said explicitly that it depends upon a balance of bargaining power).

He talks about how European divisions of US carmakers produce "desirable,
fuel-efficient cars," without mentioning either that labor has FAR more
power in Europe, or that the cars are the result of a market skewed by
government toward taxing fuel many times more than it's taxed in the US, and
decades of taxing car owners annually based on the engine displacement of
their cars. 'Sure sounds like legislative meddling to me. Why did Jenkins
skip over that crucial fact?

He complains that the fuel-efficiency standards written in the 1970s
"penalized" car makers who didn't make their fuel-efficient cars in the US.
Duh...what is Jenkins suggesting? That the US should encourage car makers to
make all of their "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars overseas? Did he not note
that "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars, if they're so desirable, would be
EXACTLY what the US builders were making if they actually were following
market demands? If they're so desirable, why aren't they what the car makers
are building here?

The whole piece is a combination of apologies for the planning and
strategies of US car company executives, flavored with a contradictory
mixture of conservative ideologies. It appears that US builders did NOT
follow the market, if those European cars are so "desirable" here. And those
desirable European cars were a response NOT to free markets, but rather to
some of the most skewed, over-legislated, over-taxed government intrusions
anywhere in the industrialized world.

You can dismiss Jenkins as a lightweight thinker and an ideologue with
blinders on. Next argument?

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

The Wall Street Journal, 22 October 2008.

Joe Gwinn
==================
Typical self-serving spin.

An old Yankee saying that applies here "When you need a helping
hand, try the end of your arm."

Consider how much pressure both Ford and GM could have brought to
bear on Congress if they had simply run ads showing their
European diesel cars which deliver 60 mpg, with the tag line
"but Washington won't let you buy one."
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...esel-63mpg.php
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09...pean-minivans/
http://www.vauxhall.co.uk/vaux/vehic...odelYear=2009A
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008...el-introd.html
http://www.huliq.com/11/69812/opel-i...-sports-tourer


videos -- no dialup
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/894070..._diesel_range/


The fact of the matter is, based on all the historical evidence;
organizations such as corporations and governmental agencies do
have a finite life span.

Most likely this is not due to some sort of internal degeneration
or "psychic exhaustion," but rather the superb ability of
management and tradition to maintain the organizational status
quo. Indeed, in many ways, maintenance of the status quo is *THE*
function of management.

The problems start to occur when the environment in which the
organization is embedded undergoes significant change, but the
organization does not. The longer internal stasis is maintained
in a changing environment, the more eccentric and dysfunctional
the organization's behavior becomes to the outside world, and the
more the outside world becomes unpredictable and malevolent to
the organization, further increasing their estrangement and
alienation.

One of the major symptoms in this case appears to be the
self-image of the nominally automotive companies as huge
industrial and financial empires. While this may have been true
at one time, this is no longer the case.

Indeed, their attempts to expand into other areas such as real
estate, finance, insurance, banking, data processing, defense
contracting, etc. appear to be major contributing factors to
their present problems, as capital was largely not reinvested in
product design and production facilities (and fully funding their
obligations such as the defined benefit pension plans) but was
dissipated on the purchase of firms such as EDS, and Hughes,
which were promptly run into the ground. Additional huge amounts
of borrowed capital were "invested" in financial operations such
as GMAC and its subsidiaries such as ResCap and Diatech Funding.
Similar examples exist for FoMoCo and Chrysler. The well-proven
banking maxim "borrowing short and lending long is a sure road to
bankruptcy," was totally ignored.

IMNSHO -- Without a total replacement of existing management
[what in the military would be called unit "reconstitution"]
there is no chance of any *SUCCESSFUL* rescue. Salvation may
also require the "reconstitution" of the UAW leadership, as both
groups bring far too much baggage to the table, little of which
has anything to do with operating a profitable automotive company
in the current environment.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:19:23 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

Congress: The icking fudiots we love to hate.

What makes you think he's right?

I was reacting to several statements, such as being reminded how much
the Big 3 automakers pay their union workers, "the legal encrustations
that accumulate along the way." and more bailouts:

"Congress has already agreed to provide the Big Three with $25 billion
in loans to help with a shift to green cars -- likely to become plain
survival cash in the event. And Congress's very nature requires
throwing good money after bad,..."


He has a narrow and jaundiced view of the Wagner Act (we give a right for
individual investors to organize into limited-liability corporations and to
bargain with employees -- why not give the same right to employees? Adam
Smith's idea of capitalism, which is what we supposedly adhere to today,
said explicitly that it depends upon a balance of bargaining power).

I'm not familiar with it (nor will I take the time to find out about
it just now) but it seemed that he was dissin' the Wagner Act because
of the wage props, nothing else.


He talks about how European divisions of US carmakers produce "desirable,
fuel-efficient cars," without mentioning either that labor has FAR more
power in Europe, or that the cars are the result of a market skewed by
government toward taxing fuel many times more than it's taxed in the US, and
decades of taxing car owners annually based on the engine displacement of
their cars. 'Sure sounds like legislative meddling to me. Why did Jenkins
skip over that crucial fact?

What's the story on our not importing the Euro versions here? I've
heard people complain that they'd rather have "one of those" than what
the Big 3 are offering here, and I've heard it just about every year
since we started allowing imports into the country.


He complains that the fuel-efficiency standards written in the 1970s
"penalized" car makers who didn't make their fuel-efficient cars in the US.
Duh...what is Jenkins suggesting? That the US should encourage car makers to
make all of their "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars overseas? Did he not note
that "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars, if they're so desirable, would be
EXACTLY what the US builders were making if they actually were following
market demands? If they're so desirable, why aren't they what the car makers
are building here?

I'll bet that many of them would sell here in the states, given a
chance. When's the last time you saw one Over Here?


The whole piece is a combination of apologies for the planning and
strategies of US car company executives, flavored with a contradictory
mixture of conservative ideologies. It appears that US builders did NOT
follow the market, if those European cars are so "desirable" here. And those
desirable European cars were a response NOT to free markets, but rather to
some of the most skewed, over-legislated, over-taxed government intrusions
anywhere in the industrialized world.

They're a response to the gov't-mandated somewhat-free market, Ed.


You can dismiss Jenkins as a lightweight thinker and an ideologue with
blinders on. Next argument?

Pass. One question, though: Why didn't you respond to my statement
about CONgress rather than climb all over Jenkins?

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:19:23 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

Congress: The icking fudiots we love to hate.

What makes you think he's right?

I was reacting to several statements, such as being reminded how much
the Big 3 automakers pay their union workers, "the legal encrustations
that accumulate along the way." and more bailouts:

"Congress has already agreed to provide the Big Three with $25 billion
in loans to help with a shift to green cars -- likely to become plain
survival cash in the event. And Congress's very nature requires
throwing good money after bad,..."

He's identified the symptom, but not the problems. One problem is that since
1973, GM, Ford, and Chrysler have always been ready with the wrong car, and
they've steadily lost market share as a result. Another problem is that each
of the Big Three, when they had a nearly pure oligopoly, didn't care *what*
the unions demanded, as long as they demanded the same of the other two. So
they brought all of the legacy costs on themselves.

Jenkin's object with this little essay is to blame Congress and the unions
and to absolve the car makers. We could spend days discussing this one, but
I'll submit that most of the problem was the car makers and their
management. If you want a contrast that shows how bad they are and how good
they could have been, look at how Caterpillar handled similar union
problems.


He has a narrow and jaundiced view of the Wagner Act (we give a right for
individual investors to organize into limited-liability corporations and
to
bargain with employees -- why not give the same right to employees? Adam
Smith's idea of capitalism, which is what we supposedly adhere to today,
said explicitly that it depends upon a balance of bargaining power).

I'm not familiar with it (nor will I take the time to find out about
it just now) but it seemed that he was dissin' the Wagner Act because
of the wage props, nothing else.

His claim is that the Wagner Act had the "nearly explicit purpose of
imposing a labor monopoly" on the car industry. That's the jaundiced view.
The purpose, in 1935, was to keep big manufacturers from pulling the floor
out from under wages and otherwise running the country into a ditch, at a
time when labor was in a weak position because of the Depression. Jenkins is
regurgitating standard right-wing economic dogma. It doesn't stand up to a
careful historical reading of events.


He talks about how European divisions of US carmakers produce "desirable,
fuel-efficient cars," without mentioning either that labor has FAR more
power in Europe, or that the cars are the result of a market skewed by
government toward taxing fuel many times more than it's taxed in the US,
and
decades of taxing car owners annually based on the engine displacement of
their cars. 'Sure sounds like legislative meddling to me. Why did Jenkins
skip over that crucial fact?

What's the story on our not importing the Euro versions here? I've
heard people complain that they'd rather have "one of those" than what
the Big 3 are offering here, and I've heard it just about every year
since we started allowing imports into the country.

Because they say they can't make money on them. Here's the story on Ford's
65 mpg Fiesta, which you can't have:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...gn_id=rss_null

The more likely reason is that they're afraid they'll undercut Focus sales,
which are more profitable. So, they would make less money. That's been the
reason for every occassion in which the US builders started with efficient
cars, and then dropped them. As Henry Ford II once said, "small cars, small
profits." They want big profits. They want to sell 6,000 lb. Ford
Extortionist SUV hybrids.

The fact is that the US car makers positioned themselves so they have to
make big margins on the cars they sell. This is a very complex issue, but
the fact that European builders can make these cars and thrive on them
should tell you that the problem is the US builders themselves, aided by
fuel tax policies that have encouraged the industry to create itself as a
big-car industry. It's not that they can't build themselves around smaller
cars -- some of the European builders are subsidiaries of the US
companies -- it's that they *didn't* do it. They lobbied for a big-car
industry; they colluded with the oil companies to get it; they got it. Now
we bail them out.


He complains that the fuel-efficiency standards written in the 1970s
"penalized" car makers who didn't make their fuel-efficient cars in the
US.
Duh...what is Jenkins suggesting? That the US should encourage car makers
to
make all of their "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars overseas? Did he not
note
that "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars, if they're so desirable, would be
EXACTLY what the US builders were making if they actually were following
market demands? If they're so desirable, why aren't they what the car
makers
are building here?

I'll bet that many of them would sell here in the states, given a
chance. When's the last time you saw one Over Here?

They would sell today. Maybe not tomorrow; gas is expected to drop to $2.25
by the end of November, based on futures. The whole market, as I said, has
been geared toward, built around, and dependent upon big-car sales. Given a
chance, we'll gravitate right back in that direction. We've done it before.

So, do you think that the Big Three just follow the market, or that they
created the market, with some help from the oil industry and the compliance
of Congress? This is the only market of its kind in the world. You decide
for yourself how it happened. It isn't excessive taxes, because ours are the
lowest fuel taxes this side of Dubai (or Caracas). It isn't because we're
too fat for small cars, although there is some of that going around. g It
isn't because our luggage industry makes bigger suitcases and needs bigger
trunks. So, what is it? Who shall we blame?

Jenkins just selects the right's favorite whipping boys, labor and Congress,
and blames it all on them. He isn't even close.



The whole piece is a combination of apologies for the planning and
strategies of US car company executives, flavored with a contradictory
mixture of conservative ideologies. It appears that US builders did NOT
follow the market, if those European cars are so "desirable" here. And
those
desirable European cars were a response NOT to free markets, but rather to
some of the most skewed, over-legislated, over-taxed government intrusions
anywhere in the industrialized world.

They're a response to the gov't-mandated somewhat-free market, Ed.

It's not a free market, somewhat or otherwise. It's a market reacting to
pretty extreme government-mandated distortions, one that was built in recent
decades on the back of a 10% market-protection limit on Japanese imports.
But the distortions produced a desirable result. It would make Jenkins gag
to have to admit this, but the irony is that he wants to import these
"desirable, efficient" cars that resulted from all that government intrusion
and market distortion in Europe, while simultaneously bitching about
government intrusion in the US. Do you think he's learning disabled, maybe?
Or maybe he's looking at the world through a narrow, ideological peephole
that makes him blind to the irony of his words?



You can dismiss Jenkins as a lightweight thinker and an ideologue with
blinders on. Next argument?

Pass. One question, though: Why didn't you respond to my statement
about CONgress rather than climb all over Jenkins?

Because it was the wrong question. And it's the wrong question because
Jenkins selected the wrong facts, and twisted them to suit his
pre-determined answers.

BTW, if you want to see what 235 mpg look like, take a look at this
prototype from Volkswagen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

Eat your heart out. d8-)

If the forecasters are right, we'll be able to forget all about it as we
slip into a deep recession and the bottom drops out of gas prices. Don't
worry, be happy.

==============================================
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..
Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!
Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!

The Federal Highway commission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.
Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!
Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

Drive Canyonero!
Woah Canyonero!
Woah!

-- The Simpsons


--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:14:07 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snipped a bunch of good stuff
He's identified the symptom, but not the problems. One problem is that since
1973, GM, Ford, and Chrysler have always been ready with the wrong car, and
they've steadily lost market share as a result.
snipped a bunch of even more good stuff
-------------
Very good analysis.

How many people think GM and Chrysler will merge before the
election? After the election but before the changing of the
guard with a new administration? Will go belly-up after the
distribution of the bonuses after the first of the year, a few
days into the new administration? Where does Ford fit? Is there
a "Ford in your future?"

Of even more interest, how many of the group are employed in
automotive and automotive related activities?


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:14:07 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:19:23 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

Congress: The icking fudiots we love to hate.

What makes you think he's right?

I was reacting to several statements, such as being reminded how much
the Big 3 automakers pay their union workers, "the legal encrustations
that accumulate along the way." and more bailouts:

"Congress has already agreed to provide the Big Three with $25 billion
in loans to help with a shift to green cars -- likely to become plain
survival cash in the event. And Congress's very nature requires
throwing good money after bad,..."

He's identified the symptom, but not the problems. One problem is that since
1973, GM, Ford, and Chrysler have always been ready with the wrong car, and
they've steadily lost market share as a result.

I wonder who their test marketing is going to. Even being in the
industry for 15 years (repairing 'em), they never consulted me once.


Another problem is that each
of the Big Three, when they had a nearly pure oligopoly, didn't care *what*
the unions demanded, as long as they demanded the same of the other two. So
they brought all of the legacy costs on themselves.

They watered their weeds until they seeded, eh?


Jenkin's object with this little essay is to blame Congress and the unions
and to absolve the car makers. We could spend days discussing this one, but
I'll submit that most of the problem was the car makers and their
management. If you want a contrast that shows how bad they are and how good
they could have been, look at how Caterpillar handled similar union
problems.

I probably wouldn't argue, but for the fact that the union issue has
made the survival of the Big 3 a moot point. They can no longer
compete and will die. THAT is why I, a Ford man from _waaaay_ back,
bought a Toyota last year. I didn't think Ford would survive to offer
any warranty. (I kept my last truck for 17 years.)


He has a narrow and jaundiced view of the Wagner Act (we give a right for
individual investors to organize into limited-liability corporations and
to
bargain with employees -- why not give the same right to employees? Adam
Smith's idea of capitalism, which is what we supposedly adhere to today,
said explicitly that it depends upon a balance of bargaining power).

I'm not familiar with it (nor will I take the time to find out about
it just now) but it seemed that he was dissin' the Wagner Act because
of the wage props, nothing else.

His claim is that the Wagner Act had the "nearly explicit purpose of
imposing a labor monopoly" on the car industry. That's the jaundiced view.
The purpose, in 1935, was to keep big manufacturers from pulling the floor
out from under wages and otherwise running the country into a ditch, at a
time when labor was in a weak position because of the Depression. Jenkins is
regurgitating standard right-wing economic dogma. It doesn't stand up to a
careful historical reading of events.

OK. That's why we have you here, Ed, to set the record straight. Umm,
quickly scanning the wiki, it created the NLRB, which I see as a union
puppet organization. Was it always so?


He talks about how European divisions of US carmakers produce "desirable,
fuel-efficient cars," without mentioning either that labor has FAR more
power in Europe, or that the cars are the result of a market skewed by
government toward taxing fuel many times more than it's taxed in the US,
and
decades of taxing car owners annually based on the engine displacement of
their cars. 'Sure sounds like legislative meddling to me. Why did Jenkins
skip over that crucial fact?

Maybe he didn't have enough white space into which to pour all the
necessary BS about Euro taxing policies. That would have cut his
1,000 or 1,500 words down to nothing, ah reckon.


What's the story on our not importing the Euro versions here? I've
heard people complain that they'd rather have "one of those" than what
the Big 3 are offering here, and I've heard it just about every year
since we started allowing imports into the country.

Because they say they can't make money on them. Here's the story on Ford's
65 mpg Fiesta, which you can't have:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...gn_id=rss_null




The more likely reason is that they're afraid they'll undercut Focus sales,
which are more profitable. So, they would make less money. That's been the

They never did realize that by producing the wrong cars, they'd
eventually go out of business, losing all market share to competitors
who would build the right (or closer to right) cars.

Have you ever looked at the Consumer Reports graphs for GM cars? For
every year, they have had the worst record of any car maker.

Disclaimer: I haven't had access to those stats for a couple of
decades, but friends have told me that they haven't changed. GM is
still a POS and Ford is sliding toward them with their godawful
transmission problems, etc.


reason for every occassion in which the US builders started with efficient
cars, and then dropped them. As Henry Ford II once said, "small cars, small
profits." They want big profits. They want to sell 6,000 lb. Ford
Extortionist SUV hybrids.

Then God Bless GM's Hummah, eh?


The fact is that the US car makers positioned themselves so they have to
make big margins on the cars they sell. This is a very complex issue, but
the fact that European builders can make these cars and thrive on them
should tell you that the problem is the US builders themselves, aided by

Ayup, and with unions screwing us out of good money, the labor can
never be lower; it's likely higher than the cost of the rest of the
car parts combined. (WAG)


fuel tax policies that have encouraged the industry to create itself as a
big-car industry. It's not that they can't build themselves around smaller
cars -- some of the European builders are subsidiaries of the US
companies -- it's that they *didn't* do it.

Didn't and won't, the arrogant bastids.


They lobbied for a big-car
industry; they colluded with the oil companies to get it; they got it. Now
we bail them out.

Feh!


He complains that the fuel-efficiency standards written in the 1970s
"penalized" car makers who didn't make their fuel-efficient cars in the
US.
Duh...what is Jenkins suggesting? That the US should encourage car makers
to
make all of their "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars overseas? Did he not
note
that "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars, if they're so desirable, would be
EXACTLY what the US builders were making if they actually were following
market demands? If they're so desirable, why aren't they what the car
makers
are building here?

I'll bet that many of them would sell here in the states, given a
chance. When's the last time you saw one Over Here?

They would sell today. Maybe not tomorrow; gas is expected to drop to $2.25
by the end of November, based on futures. The whole market, as I said, has
been geared toward, built around, and dependent upon big-car sales. Given a
chance, we'll gravitate right back in that direction. We've done it before.

God Bless election months, eh? I saw a $3.15 price yesterday when I
hit the market and was really glad. It's about time to fill up again.


So, do you think that the Big Three just follow the market, or that they
created the market, with some help from the oil industry and the compliance
of Congress? This is the only market of its kind in the world. You decide
for yourself how it happened. It isn't excessive taxes, because ours are the
lowest fuel taxes this side of Dubai (or Caracas). It isn't because we're
too fat for small cars, although there is some of that going around. g It
isn't because our luggage industry makes bigger suitcases and needs bigger
trunks. So, what is it? Who shall we blame?

I think you got it in one try in the latter half of the first sentence
there, Ed.


Jenkins just selects the right's favorite whipping boys, labor and Congress,
and blames it all on them. He isn't even close.

I truly hope you're not standing up for either, as they're both guilty
as hell for that and more. They're just not the sole culprits in this
particular case. But, hell, it gave me a chance to whine at 'em
again, so what's yer problem? g


The whole piece is a combination of apologies for the planning and
strategies of US car company executives, flavored with a contradictory
mixture of conservative ideologies. It appears that US builders did NOT
follow the market, if those European cars are so "desirable" here. And
those
desirable European cars were a response NOT to free markets, but rather to
some of the most skewed, over-legislated, over-taxed government intrusions
anywhere in the industrialized world.

They're a response to the gov't-mandated somewhat-free market, Ed.

It's not a free market, somewhat or otherwise. It's a market reacting to
pretty extreme government-mandated distortions, one that was built in recent
decades on the back of a 10% market-protection limit on Japanese imports.

I guess you missed the implied smiley there, sir.


But the distortions produced a desirable result. It would make Jenkins gag
to have to admit this, but the irony is that he wants to import these
"desirable, efficient" cars that resulted from all that government intrusion
and market distortion in Europe, while simultaneously bitching about
government intrusion in the US. Do you think he's learning disabled, maybe?
Or maybe he's looking at the world through a narrow, ideological peephole
that makes him blind to the irony of his words?




You can dismiss Jenkins as a lightweight thinker and an ideologue with
blinders on. Next argument?

Pass. One question, though: Why didn't you respond to my statement
about CONgress rather than climb all over Jenkins?

Because it was the wrong question. And it's the wrong question because
Jenkins selected the wrong facts, and twisted them to suit his
pre-determined answers.

Wrong. Congress is a current problem and we have to fix it. Keeping
them in the forefront is one way of forcing (hopeful) the *******s to
change, though they're extremely sporadic as to the amount they react
to the public eye nowadays. Clinton lied in court over something that
the entire goddamned world knew was the truth, that he couldn't keep
his pecker in his pants. Others have quit rather than face the
public. shrug


BTW, if you want to see what 235 mpg look like, take a look at this
prototype from Volkswagen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

Eat your heart out. d8-)

I wouldn't OWN a vubdubya. Ptui! Besides, it couldn't even pull a
small trailer with all my tools in it, let alone the 1,000 pounds of
wood and sand I have in it now.


If the forecasters are right, we'll be able to forget all about it as we
slip into a deep recession and the bottom drops out of gas prices. Don't
worry, be happy.

deep sigh


==============================================
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..
Canyonero! Canyonero!

Viva la Simpsons! Do you watch their show, Ed? I did for a couple
years when it came out, and I thoroughly enjoyed it then. They took
pot shots at everyone.

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

The Wall Street Journal, 22 October 2008.

Joe Gwinn
==================
Typical self-serving spin.

An old Yankee saying that applies here "When you need a helping
hand, try the end of your arm."

Consider how much pressure both Ford and GM could have brought to
bear on Congress if they had simply run ads showing their
European diesel cars which deliver 60 mpg, with the tag line
"but Washington won't let you buy one."

I don't care what their motive is. I have driven those cars in Europe,
and they are as advertised. The point is that we don't have the option.
The question is why.


The fact of the matter is, based on all the historical evidence;
organizations such as corporations and governmental agencies do
have a finite life span.

True, but why is it relevant? The question is about external
constraints. The fact that many companies become ossified is a separate
issue.


Indeed, their attempts to expand into other areas such as real
estate, finance, insurance, banking, data processing, defense
contracting, etc. appear to be major contributing factors to
their present problems, as capital was largely not reinvested in
product design and production facilities (and fully funding their
obligations such as the defined benefit pension plans) but was
dissipated on the purchase of firms such as EDS, and Hughes,
which were promptly run into the ground. Additional huge amounts
of borrowed capital were "invested" in financial operations such
as GMAC and its subsidiaries such as ResCap and Diatech Funding.
Similar examples exist for FoMoCo and Chrysler. The well-proven
banking maxim "borrowing short and lending long is a sure road to
bankruptcy," was totally ignored.

Or this expansion could be a perfectly rational reaction to those
external constraints.


IMNSHO -- Without a total replacement of existing management
[what in the military would be called unit "reconstitution"]
there is no chance of any *SUCCESSFUL* rescue. Salvation may
also require the "reconstitution" of the UAW leadership, as both
groups bring far too much baggage to the table, little of which
has anything to do with operating a profitable automotive company
in the current environment.

Actually, management has already been replaced a couple of times, to no
avail.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

Congress: The icking fudiots we love to hate.

What makes you think he's right?

He has a narrow and jaundiced view of the Wagner Act (we give a right for
individual investors to organize into limited-liability corporations and to
bargain with employees -- why not give the same right to employees? Adam
Smith's idea of capitalism, which is what we supposedly adhere to today,
said explicitly that it depends upon a balance of bargaining power).

He talks about how European divisions of US carmakers produce "desirable,
fuel-efficient cars," without mentioning either that labor has FAR more
power in Europe, or that the cars are the result of a market skewed by
government toward taxing fuel many times more than it's taxed in the US, and
decades of taxing car owners annually based on the engine displacement of
their cars. 'Sure sounds like legislative meddling to me. Why did Jenkins
skip over that crucial fact?

He complains that the fuel-efficiency standards written in the 1970s
"penalized" car makers who didn't make their fuel-efficient cars in the US.
Duh...what is Jenkins suggesting? That the US should encourage car makers to
make all of their "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars overseas? Did he not note
that "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars, if they're so desirable, would be
EXACTLY what the US builders were making if they actually were following
market demands? If they're so desirable, why aren't they what the car makers
are building here?

The whole piece is a combination of apologies for the planning and
strategies of US car company executives, flavored with a contradictory
mixture of conservative ideologies. It appears that US builders did NOT
follow the market, if those European cars are so "desirable" here. And those
desirable European cars were a response NOT to free markets, but rather to
some of the most skewed, over-legislated, over-taxed government intrusions
anywhere in the industrialized world.

You can dismiss Jenkins as a lightweight thinker and an ideologue with
blinders on. Next argument?

Most of the above is ad hominem. We will stipulate that Jenkins is a
running dog and capitalist roader. And kicks dogs and grandmothers.

With that accomplished, please address Jenkins' actual arguments.

Joe Gwinn

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:47:55 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
How many people think GM and Chrysler will merge before the
election? After the election but before the changing of the
guard with a new administration? Will go belly-up after the
distribution of the bonuses after the first of the year, a few
days into the new administration? Where does Ford fit? Is there
a "Ford in your future?"
snip
===================
The rumblings get louder......

------------------
GM suspends payments into 401K plans
23 Oct 2008

DETROIT (Reuters) – General Motors Corp (GM.N) is suspending
matching payments to employee 401K plans as of November 1 and
continues to assess its staffing needs as part of efforts to
conserve cash amid a deep downturn in sales, the automaker said
on Thursday.

snip
--------------
for complete article click on
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081023/...kuBJPE3HSyBhIF


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Oct 23, 1:47*am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:

I for one work in the auto industry - project egr mostly in "open air"
- as a topsatck engineer (convertible tops, soft tops, folding hard
tops). There is currently a major lull in open air in the US, so I am
working as a packaging egr on a dual mode hybrid sedan (think Chevy
Volt but much more attracitve than GM's production release of the
Volt). Many of my peers are currently out of work.

My second job (and part of my future retirement portfolio) is as a
small time landlord with several small houses, geared to the un/semi-
skilled blue collar, I have major concerns about who / where my
potential tenants will be in the future as manufacturing dries up.
I'd like to pickup another house or two over the next 3 to 4 years
while the housing market is down but I am concerned that I may not be
able to fill the houses in the future.




George McDuffee wrote:

How many people think GM and Chrysler will merge before the
election? *After the election but before the changing of the
guard with a new administration? *Will go belly-up after the
distribution of the bonuses after the first of the year, a few
days into the new administration? *Where does Ford fit? *Is there
a "Ford in your future?"

Of even more interest, how many of the group are employed in
automotive and automotive related activities?

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

Congress: The icking fudiots we love to hate.

What makes you think he's right?

He has a narrow and jaundiced view of the Wagner Act (we give a right for
individual investors to organize into limited-liability corporations and
to
bargain with employees -- why not give the same right to employees? Adam
Smith's idea of capitalism, which is what we supposedly adhere to today,
said explicitly that it depends upon a balance of bargaining power).

He talks about how European divisions of US carmakers produce "desirable,
fuel-efficient cars," without mentioning either that labor has FAR more
power in Europe, or that the cars are the result of a market skewed by
government toward taxing fuel many times more than it's taxed in the US,
and
decades of taxing car owners annually based on the engine displacement of
their cars. 'Sure sounds like legislative meddling to me. Why did Jenkins
skip over that crucial fact?

He complains that the fuel-efficiency standards written in the 1970s
"penalized" car makers who didn't make their fuel-efficient cars in the
US.
Duh...what is Jenkins suggesting? That the US should encourage car makers
to
make all of their "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars overseas? Did he not
note
that "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars, if they're so desirable, would be
EXACTLY what the US builders were making if they actually were following
market demands? If they're so desirable, why aren't they what the car
makers
are building here?

The whole piece is a combination of apologies for the planning and
strategies of US car company executives, flavored with a contradictory
mixture of conservative ideologies. It appears that US builders did NOT
follow the market, if those European cars are so "desirable" here. And
those
desirable European cars were a response NOT to free markets, but rather
to
some of the most skewed, over-legislated, over-taxed government
intrusions
anywhere in the industrialized world.

You can dismiss Jenkins as a lightweight thinker and an ideologue with
blinders on. Next argument?

Most of the above is ad hominem. We will stipulate that Jenkins is a
running dog and capitalist roader. And kicks dogs and grandmothers.

With that accomplished, please address Jenkins' actual arguments.

He didn't make any. He made empty, unsubstantiated assertions. I could spend
a couple of weeks compiling data that refutes his arguments -- it took me
six months to compile data for writing three articles on China trade, and I
don't do that kind of thing unless I'm paid well g -- but Jenkins has
obviated the need to do so. When he blathers off the top of his head, it's
his head that he's presented as the target.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:18:29 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:47:55 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
How many people think GM and Chrysler will merge before the
election? After the election but before the changing of the
guard with a new administration? Will go belly-up after the
distribution of the bonuses after the first of the year, a few
days into the new administration? Where does Ford fit? Is there
a "Ford in your future?"
snip
===================
Another thought on this -- why didn't GM suspend the 7_1/2% they
pay on payroll to fund Social Security --- so much for
privatization....

Also how was the executive deferred compensation plan modified in
the spirit of shared sacrifice?

-----------------
The rumblings get louder......

------------------
GM suspends payments into 401K plans
23 Oct 2008

DETROIT (Reuters) – General Motors Corp (GM.N) is suspending
matching payments to employee 401K plans as of November 1 and
continues to assess its staffing needs as part of efforts to
conserve cash amid a deep downturn in sales, the automaker said
on Thursday.

snip
--------------
for complete article click on
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081023/...kuBJPE3HSyBhIF


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:12:46 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

The Wall Street Journal, 22 October 2008.

Joe Gwinn
==================
Typical self-serving spin.

An old Yankee saying that applies here "When you need a helping
hand, try the end of your arm."

Consider how much pressure both Ford and GM could have brought to
bear on Congress if they had simply run ads showing their
European diesel cars which deliver 60 mpg, with the tag line
"but Washington won't let you buy one."

I don't care what their motive is. I have driven those cars in Europe,
and they are as advertised. The point is that we don't have the option.
The question is why.
--------------
The logical answer may be that the profit margin was better for
the gigunda cars and trucks,and that's what the factories were
set up for. The actual answer may well be the domestic
management/marketing attitude that "I know what's best for you,"
and "you will get what I want you to get ==and you will like
it==."


The fact of the matter is, based on all the historical evidence;
organizations such as corporations and governmental agencies do
have a finite life span.

True, but why is it relevant? The question is about external
constraints. The fact that many companies become ossified is a separate
issue.
Indeed, the article was about external constraints, but this is
exactly the point of discussion. I.e. "external constraints" are
the *EXCUSES* and not the problem.

If the problem is indeed organizational Alzheimer's or "senile
dementia," pumping infinite amounts of taxpayer money in is
simply delaying the inevitable at enormous expense.

It is worth noting that the domestic automotive companies are all
about the same organizational age, and many other venerable
corporations with wonderful track records went into decline about
this same organizational age such as big US steel and US
railroads.

"External constraints" as an excuse/rationale does not work in
that the European "external constraints" in terms of emissions,
safety regulations, labor costs, etc. are *HIGHER* than the US
ones, unless of course, you assume that the European management
and employees are smarter than the US management and employees,
which suggests another solution....


Indeed, their attempts to expand into other areas such as real
estate, finance, insurance, banking, data processing, defense
contracting, etc. appear to be major contributing factors to
their present problems, as capital was largely not reinvested in
product design and production facilities (and fully funding their
obligations such as the defined benefit pension plans) but was
dissipated on the purchase of firms such as EDS, and Hughes,
which were promptly run into the ground. Additional huge amounts
of borrowed capital were "invested" in financial operations such
as GMAC and its subsidiaries such as ResCap and Diatech Funding.
Similar examples exist for FoMoCo and Chrysler. The well-proven
banking maxim "borrowing short and lending long is a sure road to
bankruptcy," was totally ignored.

Or this expansion could be a perfectly rational reaction to those
external constraints.

Or it could be a desperate attempt to succeed at something --
anything. Their record is not good. In most cases, a premium
was paid for a successful and going concern, which was quickly
"managed" into the ground, after the acquiring corporation's
policies, procedures, values, etc. were imposed. Unfortunately,
the domestic automotive companies are not unique in this.

Another factor is the obstinate refusal of management to
distribute large surges/spikes in earnings to the owners
(stockholders) in the form of dividends, to reinvest in their
core business, to fully fund their pension plans*, or just hold
as a cash reserve. Zilog [big Intel competitor at the time with
their Z80 CPU chip] and Exxon is example of this.

[* It is worth remembering that when GM stock was at its peak,
the company was taking huge sums of money *OUT* of their pension
plans under the so called "excess funding" or recapture
provisions. Like the Katzenjammer Kids "they brought it (the
pension funding problems) on themselves."]


IMNSHO -- Without a total replacement of existing management
[what in the military would be called unit "reconstitution"]
there is no chance of any *SUCCESSFUL* rescue. Salvation may
also require the "reconstitution" of the UAW leadership, as both
groups bring far too much baggage to the table, little of which
has anything to do with operating a profitable automotive company
in the current environment.

Actually, management has already been replaced a couple of times, to no
avail.
Only in the case of Ford [aerospace Boeing] and Chrysler [Home
Depot] was a complete automotive outsider brought in as CEO.
[Wagoner at GM seems to have worked only at GM since college
graduation. FWIW -- he is an accountant and not a "car guy."]

Even in these two cases, the existing and upper management was
retained, which may well be the "kiss of death." "Natural
selection" has filled their ranks with expert political
infighters, system gamers, guerilla fighters, and careerists.
The repeated layoffs, re-engineerings and re-organizations purged
everyone, else particularly the people that were busy doing
constructive/creative [other than accounting] work, such as
getting the product out the door at a profit.

INMSHO what is needed is a total "reconstitution," [which may
very well not succeed at this point] which in military terms is
the replacement of *ALL* a units officers and non-commissioned
officers, other than possibly a few non-command specialists.

Given the track record over the last 10 years, the replacements
can hardly do any worse.

Joe Gwinn

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:14:07 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

snip


"Congress has already agreed to provide the Big Three with $25 billion
in loans to help with a shift to green cars -- likely to become plain
survival cash in the event. And Congress's very nature requires
throwing good money after bad,..."

He's identified the symptom, but not the problems. One problem is that
since
1973, GM, Ford, and Chrysler have always been ready with the wrong car,
and
they've steadily lost market share as a result.

I wonder who their test marketing is going to. Even being in the
industry for 15 years (repairing 'em), they never consulted me once.


The way they operate, they always must gravitate toward the largest cars
that they can. That's because they're high-overhead operations and because
the stockholders are nipping at their heels for the highest possible
quarterly profits. This phenomenon, at least among large institutional
stockholders, got started in the '70s. The way our Big Three had positioned
themselves, it left them vulnerable to always being behind the market if it
suddenly started demanding small cars.

They can make big profits when fuel is cheap and the economy is humming
along. But they're structured in a way that's almost guarenteed to fail when
the economy turns down or fuel prices rise sharply. It's in their bones,
their culture, and their structure.


Another problem is that each
of the Big Three, when they had a nearly pure oligopoly, didn't care
*what*
the unions demanded, as long as they demanded the same of the other two.
So
they brought all of the legacy costs on themselves.

They watered their weeds until they seeded, eh?

Yes, and that's the result of living too long in isolation from foreign
markets and from oligopolistic relationships among the US car makers. It
doesn't take stupidity or evilness to get into that trap. It takes only
unrelenting pressure to make the best short-term profits, and short-sighted
leadership -- although that could be described as a lack of ability to
predict the future. g



Jenkin's object with this little essay is to blame Congress and the unions
and to absolve the car makers. We could spend days discussing this one,
but
I'll submit that most of the problem was the car makers and their
management. If you want a contrast that shows how bad they are and how
good
they could have been, look at how Caterpillar handled similar union
problems.

I probably wouldn't argue, but for the fact that the union issue has
made the survival of the Big 3 a moot point. They can no longer
compete and will die. THAT is why I, a Ford man from _waaaay_ back,
bought a Toyota last year. I didn't think Ford would survive to offer
any warranty. (I kept my last truck for 17 years.)

The only way to understand the situation is to take a long historical view.
The answer to why we're in this fix is the answer to the question of how we
got here over the long haul.



He has a narrow and jaundiced view of the Wagner Act (we give a right
for
individual investors to organize into limited-liability corporations and
to
bargain with employees -- why not give the same right to employees? Adam
Smith's idea of capitalism, which is what we supposedly adhere to today,
said explicitly that it depends upon a balance of bargaining power).

I'm not familiar with it (nor will I take the time to find out about
it just now) but it seemed that he was dissin' the Wagner Act because
of the wage props, nothing else.

His claim is that the Wagner Act had the "nearly explicit purpose of
imposing a labor monopoly" on the car industry. That's the jaundiced view.
The purpose, in 1935, was to keep big manufacturers from pulling the floor
out from under wages and otherwise running the country into a ditch, at a
time when labor was in a weak position because of the Depression. Jenkins
is
regurgitating standard right-wing economic dogma. It doesn't stand up to a
careful historical reading of events.

OK. That's why we have you here, Ed, to set the record straight. Umm,
quickly scanning the wiki, it created the NLRB, which I see as a union
puppet organization. Was it always so?

Not always a "puppet." It was the mechanism that put the Wagner Act into
force. It was helped along by a reversal in Supreme Court decisions in the
mid-'30s. Until that time the Court always sided with the owners, and
basically said that union organizing was unconstitutional.

It was a bizarre time in Constitutional history, well worth studying.


He talks about how European divisions of US carmakers produce
"desirable,
fuel-efficient cars," without mentioning either that labor has FAR more
power in Europe, or that the cars are the result of a market skewed by
government toward taxing fuel many times more than it's taxed in the US,
and
decades of taxing car owners annually based on the engine displacement
of
their cars. 'Sure sounds like legislative meddling to me. Why did
Jenkins
skip over that crucial fact?

Maybe he didn't have enough white space into which to pour all the
necessary BS about Euro taxing policies. That would have cut his
1,000 or 1,500 words down to nothing, ah reckon.

What he's left with, though, is a screed that plays to the prejudices of his
audience. It's not evidence of anything except what dogmatic beliefs those
people already hold.


What's the story on our not importing the Euro versions here? I've
heard people complain that they'd rather have "one of those" than what
the Big 3 are offering here, and I've heard it just about every year
since we started allowing imports into the country.

Because they say they can't make money on them. Here's the story on Ford's
65 mpg Fiesta, which you can't have:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...gn_id=rss_null




The more likely reason is that they're afraid they'll undercut Focus
sales,
which are more profitable. So, they would make less money. That's been the

They never did realize that by producing the wrong cars, they'd
eventually go out of business, losing all market share to competitors
who would build the right (or closer to right) cars.

I'd like to help you identify some stupidity or ill motivation on the part
of management (who I think are intellectually lazy, flabby, and dull, but
not stupid), but that isn't the complete story, either.


Have you ever looked at the Consumer Reports graphs for GM cars? For
every year, they have had the worst record of any car maker.

Disclaimer: I haven't had access to those stats for a couple of
decades, but friends have told me that they haven't changed. GM is
still a POS and Ford is sliding toward them with their godawful
transmission problems, etc.

I think they've gotten a lot better, but it's too late. They're like John
McCain in the final weeks -- spinning around looking for a solution.


reason for every occassion in which the US builders started with efficient
cars, and then dropped them. As Henry Ford II once said, "small cars,
small
profits." They want big profits. They want to sell 6,000 lb. Ford
Extortionist SUV hybrids.

Then God Bless GM's Hummah, eh?

It sure looks like a stockholder's wet dream, eh? Another couple of years of
cheap gas and a good economy, and it might have expanded into a whole line:
Hummer sports coupes, convertibles, station wagons, and family sedans. We'd
all own Hummer-like objects before long.



The fact is that the US car makers positioned themselves so they have to
make big margins on the cars they sell. This is a very complex issue, but
the fact that European builders can make these cars and thrive on them
should tell you that the problem is the US builders themselves, aided by

Ayup, and with unions screwing us out of good money, the labor can
never be lower; it's likely higher than the cost of the rest of the
car parts combined. (WAG)

Your WAG is off by a bit. d8-) Total direct labor cost (averages $43/hour at
GM, which is the highest, and that includes the legacy benefits of $9/hour
or so for retirees) is around 10% of production cost, but this is a screwy
figure because parts made by outside vendors are counted as materials costs.
Indirect labor (company labor not involved in production) is something like
5%. In independent car-parts production, total labor runs 15% - 20% of
production cost. FWIW, materials costs (which include these outside parts)
are roughly 80% of the cost of making a car.

So you can see, even if you count the labor costs of the outside vendors,
the total is something like 25% - 30% labor, about half of which is at
auto-industry wage and benefits rates, and the other half at the lower rates
of vendors, most of which are not UAW.



fuel tax policies that have encouraged the industry to create itself as a
big-car industry. It's not that they can't build themselves around smaller
cars -- some of the European builders are subsidiaries of the US
companies -- it's that they *didn't* do it.

Didn't and won't, the arrogant bastids.

Again, if you can come up with a way for them to attract capital while
paying lower dividends than their competitors, they'd probably grab at it.


They lobbied for a big-car
industry; they colluded with the oil companies to get it; they got it. Now
we bail them out.

Feh!

There's plenty of blame to go around. The car industry and the oil industry
made that bed, but not without the agreement of consumers. And Congress is
doing what we demand. Someone said here the other day that Congress is
supposed to respond to the demands of the voters. Well, the voters want big
cars, superhighways, and cheap gas. We got what we demanded. Now we're all
paying for it.



He complains that the fuel-efficiency standards written in the 1970s
"penalized" car makers who didn't make their fuel-efficient cars in the
US.
Duh...what is Jenkins suggesting? That the US should encourage car
makers
to
make all of their "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars overseas? Did he not
note
that "desirable, fuel-efficient" cars, if they're so desirable, would be
EXACTLY what the US builders were making if they actually were following
market demands? If they're so desirable, why aren't they what the car
makers
are building here?

I'll bet that many of them would sell here in the states, given a
chance. When's the last time you saw one Over Here?

They would sell today. Maybe not tomorrow; gas is expected to drop to
$2.25
by the end of November, based on futures. The whole market, as I said, has
been geared toward, built around, and dependent upon big-car sales. Given
a
chance, we'll gravitate right back in that direction. We've done it
before.

God Bless election months, eh? I saw a $3.15 price yesterday when I
hit the market and was really glad. It's about time to fill up again.

I filled up this morning for $2.46/gal.


So, do you think that the Big Three just follow the market, or that they
created the market, with some help from the oil industry and the
compliance
of Congress? This is the only market of its kind in the world. You decide
for yourself how it happened. It isn't excessive taxes, because ours are
the
lowest fuel taxes this side of Dubai (or Caracas). It isn't because we're
too fat for small cars, although there is some of that going around. g
It
isn't because our luggage industry makes bigger suitcases and needs bigger
trunks. So, what is it? Who shall we blame?

I think you got it in one try in the latter half of the first sentence
there, Ed.

Don't forget consumers. We vote, and Congress responds.



Jenkins just selects the right's favorite whipping boys, labor and
Congress,
and blames it all on them. He isn't even close.

I truly hope you're not standing up for either, as they're both guilty
as hell for that and more. They're just not the sole culprits in this
particular case. But, hell, it gave me a chance to whine at 'em
again, so what's yer problem? g

We have met the enemy, and you know who it is. d8-)



The whole piece is a combination of apologies for the planning and
strategies of US car company executives, flavored with a contradictory
mixture of conservative ideologies. It appears that US builders did NOT
follow the market, if those European cars are so "desirable" here. And
those
desirable European cars were a response NOT to free markets, but rather
to
some of the most skewed, over-legislated, over-taxed government
intrusions
anywhere in the industrialized world.

They're a response to the gov't-mandated somewhat-free market, Ed.

It's not a free market, somewhat or otherwise. It's a market reacting to
pretty extreme government-mandated distortions, one that was built in
recent
decades on the back of a 10% market-protection limit on Japanese imports.

I guess you missed the implied smiley there, sir.

Yup. I'll try harder to read between and around the lines.



But the distortions produced a desirable result. It would make Jenkins gag
to have to admit this, but the irony is that he wants to import these
"desirable, efficient" cars that resulted from all that government
intrusion
and market distortion in Europe, while simultaneously bitching about
government intrusion in the US. Do you think he's learning disabled,
maybe?
Or maybe he's looking at the world through a narrow, ideological peephole
that makes him blind to the irony of his words?




You can dismiss Jenkins as a lightweight thinker and an ideologue with
blinders on. Next argument?

Pass. One question, though: Why didn't you respond to my statement
about CONgress rather than climb all over Jenkins?

Because it was the wrong question. And it's the wrong question because
Jenkins selected the wrong facts, and twisted them to suit his
pre-determined answers.

Wrong. Congress is a current problem and we have to fix it. Keeping
them in the forefront is one way of forcing (hopeful) the *******s to
change, though they're extremely sporadic as to the amount they react
to the public eye nowadays.

OK, so Congress kept gas taxes low, and spent money to build highways, and
made it possible for labor to raise their wages -- primarily for the 10% of
costs represented by direct labor, and maybe half of the other labor costs,
inside the car companies and outside.

What did they do wrong? Should they have increased gas taxes? Should they
have not built highways? As for labor, they vote too. Should Congress have
ignored their demands? What is it that Congress could have done to encourage
the building of smaller, fuel efficient cars, that the voters would have
tolerated?

And, if Congress is going to contradict the wishes of all of those colluding
stakeholders, who would have voted for them? Would you vote for them if
their platform was higher gas prices?

Clinton lied in court over something that
the entire goddamned world knew was the truth, that he couldn't keep
his pecker in his pants. Others have quit rather than face the
public. shrug

In Europe, they would have given him a medal. g



BTW, if you want to see what 235 mpg look like, take a look at this
prototype from Volkswagen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

Eat your heart out. d8-)

I wouldn't OWN a vubdubya. Ptui! Besides, it couldn't even pull a
small trailer with all my tools in it, let alone the 1,000 pounds of
wood and sand I have in it now.

It must be burdensome. That's business for you.



If the forecasters are right, we'll be able to forget all about it as we
slip into a deep recession and the bottom drops out of gas prices. Don't
worry, be happy.

deep sigh


==============================================
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..
Canyonero! Canyonero!

Viva la Simpsons! Do you watch their show, Ed? I did for a couple
years when it came out, and I thoroughly enjoyed it then. They took
pot shots at everyone.

Same with me. I saw the episode with Crusty the Clown and his new Canyonero,
which had me rolling on the floor. But I only watch it now when my son is
home and he turns it on.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:51:27 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

They can make big profits when fuel is cheap and the economy is humming
along. But they're structured in a way that's almost guarenteed to fail when
the economy turns down or fuel prices rise sharply. It's in their bones,
their culture, and their structure.

C'est la vie, Detroit! And don't let the door hit you in the arse on
the way out...


They watered their weeds until they seeded, eh?

Yes, and that's the result of living too long in isolation from foreign
markets and from oligopolistic relationships among the US car makers. It
doesn't take stupidity or evilness to get into that trap. It takes only
unrelenting pressure to make the best short-term profits, and short-sighted
leadership -- although that could be described as a lack of ability to
predict the future. g

Hah! Look at what Toyota has done, starting with imports long ago,
then brand new factories in our country, and then turning into the #2
manufacturer here. Managerial greed was controlled. Too bad for the
Big 3, who didn't control it.

--snip--
I probably wouldn't argue, but for the fact that the union issue has
made the survival of the Big 3 a moot point. They can no longer
compete and will die. THAT is why I, a Ford man from _waaaay_ back,
bought a Toyota last year. I didn't think Ford would survive to offer
any warranty. (I kept my last truck for 17 years.)

The only way to understand the situation is to take a long historical view.
The answer to why we're in this fix is the answer to the question of how we
got here over the long haul.

The first fuel crisis in the 70s?


OK. That's why we have you here, Ed, to set the record straight. Umm,
quickly scanning the wiki, it created the NLRB, which I see as a union
puppet organization. Was it always so?

Not always a "puppet." It was the mechanism that put the Wagner Act into
force. It was helped along by a reversal in Supreme Court decisions in the
mid-'30s. Until that time the Court always sided with the owners, and
basically said that union organizing was unconstitutional.

It was a bizarre time in Constitutional history, well worth studying.

Who has the time, if they were so inclined? I sure don't.


Maybe he didn't have enough white space into which to pour all the
necessary BS about Euro taxing policies. That would have cut his
1,000 or 1,500 words down to nothing, ah reckon.

What he's left with, though, is a screed that plays to the prejudices of his
audience. It's not evidence of anything except what dogmatic beliefs those
people already hold.

Nobody's perfect. titter


They never did realize that by producing the wrong cars, they'd
eventually go out of business, losing all market share to competitors
who would build the right (or closer to right) cars.

I'd like to help you identify some stupidity or ill motivation on the part
of management (who I think are intellectually lazy, flabby, and dull, but
not stupid), but that isn't the complete story, either.

It ends the same either way, doesn't it?


Have you ever looked at the Consumer Reports graphs for GM cars? For
every year, they have had the worst record of any car maker.

Disclaimer: I haven't had access to those stats for a couple of
decades, but friends have told me that they haven't changed. GM is
still a POS and Ford is sliding toward them with their godawful
transmission problems, etc.

I think they've gotten a lot better, but it's too late. They're like John
McCain in the final weeks -- spinning around looking for a solution.

I don't want to see the Nov 4th results. I really don't. I think I'm
going to have to yet again face an (five in a freakin' row?)
antithetical presidential term and I reallyreallyreally don't want to.
They sure know how to kill patriotism in D.C., don't they? sigh

I'm for minimum three-digit IQ in voters. No more of this single digit
crap, OK?


reason for every occassion in which the US builders started with efficient
cars, and then dropped them. As Henry Ford II once said, "small cars,
small
profits." They want big profits. They want to sell 6,000 lb. Ford
Extortionist SUV hybrids.

Then God Bless GM's Hummah, eh?

It sure looks like a stockholder's wet dream, eh? Another couple of years of
cheap gas and a good economy, and it might have expanded into a whole line:
Hummer sports coupes, convertibles, station wagons, and family sedans. We'd
all own Hummer-like objects before long.

We'll all be buying 2-bedroom homes with 10-SUV garages!


Ayup, and with unions screwing us out of good money, the labor can
never be lower; it's likely higher than the cost of the rest of the
car parts combined. (WAG)

Your WAG is off by a bit. d8-) Total direct labor cost (averages $43/hour at
GM, which is the highest, and that includes the legacy benefits of $9/hour
or so for retirees) is around 10% of production cost, but this is a screwy
figure because parts made by outside vendors are counted as materials costs.
Indirect labor (company labor not involved in production) is something like
5%. In independent car-parts production, total labor runs 15% - 20% of
production cost. FWIW, materials costs (which include these outside parts)
are roughly 80% of the cost of making a car.

Skewedfigures from a large corporation (or gov't office)? Who ever
heard of _that_?



They lobbied for a big-car
industry; they colluded with the oil companies to get it; they got it. Now
we bail them out.

Feh!

There's plenty of blame to go around. The car industry and the oil industry
made that bed, but not without the agreement of consumers. And Congress is
doing what we demand. Someone said here the other day that Congress is
supposed to respond to the demands of the voters. Well, the voters want big
cars, superhighways, and cheap gas. We got what we demanded. Now we're all
paying for it.

That's what Detroit said. It's not, by a long shot, the whole reality.

Detroit didn't change along with our eco-awareness when the first fuel
crisis hit 30+ years ago. Datsun and Toyota did and they're in good
shape here. Yeah, there are still plenty of big-car drivers around,
and they're really nice for cross-country trips like I did to New
Mexico 7 years ago. But the little Hyundai Elantra I rented 2 years
ago was nearly as comfy as the Merc Marquis on the freeway, and it got
me 30mpg at 75-95mph on the Bay Area trip. Big cars are obsolete for
most of the old reasons.


I filled up this morning for $2.46/gal.

I hope it's that low for me tomorrow. I need to fill up. The needle is
just about down to where the light comes on, and I have another load
of pavers to take out. Ugh! That crap's heavy.


Don't forget consumers. We vote, and Congress responds.

Yeah, and we send letters but the CONgresscritters vote the other way
(if the lobbyists' bribes got through.) sigh


Jenkins just selects the right's favorite whipping boys, labor and
Congress,
and blames it all on them. He isn't even close.

I truly hope you're not standing up for either, as they're both guilty
as hell for that and more. They're just not the sole culprits in this
particular case. But, hell, it gave me a chance to whine at 'em
again, so what's yer problem? g

We have met the enemy, and you know who it is. d8-)

Pogo Was Here!


Wrong. Congress is a current problem and we have to fix it. Keeping
them in the forefront is one way of forcing (hopeful) the *******s to
change, though they're extremely sporadic as to the amount they react
to the public eye nowadays.

OK, so Congress kept gas taxes low, and spent money to build highways, and
made it possible for labor to raise their wages -- primarily for the 10% of
costs represented by direct labor, and maybe half of the other labor costs,
inside the car companies and outside.

Oh, come on, Ed. Your focus is too tight. The gov't can't even run a
brothel right. I'm talking about all the unnecessary crap they
overspend on every day.


What did they do wrong? Should they have increased gas taxes? Should they
have not built highways? As for labor, they vote too. Should Congress have
ignored their demands? What is it that Congress could have done to encourage
the building of smaller, fuel efficient cars, that the voters would have
tolerated?

They could have offered reduced import taxes on small cars to the
Japanese (spurring U.S. competition) or rebates to the Big-3 for
producing small cars (monetary incentives.)


And, if Congress is going to contradict the wishes of all of those colluding
stakeholders, who would have voted for them? Would you vote for them if
their platform was higher gas prices?

g


Clinton lied in court over something that
the entire goddamned world knew was the truth, that he couldn't keep
his pecker in his pants. Others have quit rather than face the
public. shrug

In Europe, they would have given him a medal. g

For using his pecker, not for lying in court, right?


BTW, if you want to see what 235 mpg look like, take a look at this
prototype from Volkswagen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

Eat your heart out. d8-)

I wouldn't OWN a vubdubya. Ptui! Besides, it couldn't even pull a
small trailer with all my tools in it, let alone the 1,000 pounds of
wood and sand I have in it now.

It must be burdensome. That's business for you.

I've been busy since July, and have done 8 raised bed garden frame in
the past six weeks or so. Fall is making up for a really bad first
half year, thank Buddha.


Viva la Simpsons! Do you watch their show, Ed? I did for a couple
years when it came out, and I thoroughly enjoyed it then. They took
pot shots at everyone.

Same with me. I saw the episode with Crusty the Clown and his new Canyonero,
which had me rolling on the floor. But I only watch it now when my son is
home and he turns it on.

Yeah, I occasionally see a few minutes and it's always a hoot.

--
"The latest documents released this week showed
that priests with drug, alcohol and sexual abuse
problems continued in the ministry as recently as
two years ago. That doesn't sound like a church,
it sounds like Congress with holy water." -Jay Leno

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:15:48
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
There's plenty of blame to go around. The car industry and the oil industry
made that bed, but not without the agreement of consumers. And Congress is
doing what we demand. Someone said here the other day that Congress is
supposed to respond to the demands of the voters. Well, the voters want big
cars, superhighways, and cheap gas. We got what we demanded. Now we're all
paying for it.

That's what Detroit said. It's not, by a long shot, the whole reality.

Detroit didn't change along with our eco-awareness when the first fuel
crisis hit 30+ years ago. Datsun and Toyota did

Datsun and Toyota (and Volkswagen and SAAB) were already building
cars with gas mileage based on the fact that gas cost the equivalent
of ten dollars a gallon (what ever the equivalent would have been in
1972). It wasn't "Eco_awareness" as "Pocket book awareness." The
sudden drive for more fuel efficiency had more to do with OPEC
deciding to raise the price of crude oil, and gas skyrocketed to 45
cents a gallon.


and they're in good
shape here. Yeah, there are still plenty of big-car drivers around,
and they're really nice for cross-country trips like I did to New
Mexico 7 years ago. But the little Hyundai Elantra I rented 2 years
ago was nearly as comfy as the Merc Marquis on the freeway, and it got
me 30mpg at 75-95mph on the Bay Area trip. Big cars are obsolete for
most of the old reasons.

The land yachts of yore are, with their "floating" road responses
and the like. As Mercedes and others have consistently demonstrated,
it is possible to build a Large Car, which is comfortable to ride in
and a pleasure to drive, and still get good gas mileage.
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:19:39 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:15:48
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
There's plenty of blame to go around. The car industry and the oil industry
made that bed, but not without the agreement of consumers. And Congress is
doing what we demand. Someone said here the other day that Congress is
supposed to respond to the demands of the voters. Well, the voters want big
cars, superhighways, and cheap gas. We got what we demanded. Now we're all
paying for it.

That's what Detroit said. It's not, by a long shot, the whole reality.

Detroit didn't change along with our eco-awareness when the first fuel
crisis hit 30+ years ago. Datsun and Toyota did

Datsun and Toyota (and Volkswagen and SAAB) were already building
cars with gas mileage based on the fact that gas cost the equivalent
of ten dollars a gallon (what ever the equivalent would have been in
1972). It wasn't "Eco_awareness" as "Pocket book awareness." The
sudden drive for more fuel efficiency had more to do with OPEC
deciding to raise the price of crude oil, and gas skyrocketed to 45
cents a gallon.

Oh, that's right. Eco-awareness was triggered by the fuel crisis,
wasn't it?


and they're in good
shape here. Yeah, there are still plenty of big-car drivers around,
and they're really nice for cross-country trips like I did to New
Mexico 7 years ago. But the little Hyundai Elantra I rented 2 years
ago was nearly as comfy as the Merc Marquis on the freeway, and it got
me 30mpg at 75-95mph on the Bay Area trip. Big cars are obsolete for
most of the old reasons.

The land yachts of yore are, with their "floating" road responses
and the like. As Mercedes and others have consistently demonstrated,
it is possible to build a Large Car, which is comfortable to ride in
and a pleasure to drive, and still get good gas mileage.

True. I wouldn't own one of those VWs big brother vehicles, either.
Having worked on them, I'm simply not nearly as impressed by the
"wonderful German engineering" as most folks.

I've seen two of the famous Beemers upside down on the side of the
freeway in LoCal. Evidently, they were in the fast lane and had to hit
their brakes for traffic while on a slight uphill very slight turn and
they rolled over. Some sports car _they_ are. Bwahahahahaha!
I-5 between markers 34 and 36 raises from sea level to maybe 1,000' in
a mile. See the wicked turn here and laugh:
http://www.mapquest.com/mq/10-TMcyPQxISktt

--
"The latest documents released this week showed
that priests with drug, alcohol and sexual abuse
problems continued in the ministry as recently as
two years ago. That doesn't sound like a church,
it sounds like Congress with holy water." -Jay Leno

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:51:27 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

They can make big profits when fuel is cheap and the economy is humming
along. But they're structured in a way that's almost guarenteed to fail
when
the economy turns down or fuel prices rise sharply. It's in their bones,
their culture, and their structure.

C'est la vie, Detroit! And don't let the door hit you in the arse on
the way out...


They watered their weeds until they seeded, eh?

Yes, and that's the result of living too long in isolation from foreign
markets and from oligopolistic relationships among the US car makers. It
doesn't take stupidity or evilness to get into that trap. It takes only
unrelenting pressure to make the best short-term profits, and
short-sighted
leadership -- although that could be described as a lack of ability to
predict the future. g

Hah! Look at what Toyota has done, starting with imports long ago,
then brand new factories in our country, and then turning into the #2
manufacturer here. Managerial greed was controlled. Too bad for the
Big 3, who didn't control it.

Toyota is a small-car company that makes some big cars. When the economy
turns down or fuel prices go up, they're well-positioned.

One way to look at this is that the world is gravitating toward the
equilibrium that has already been established in Europe and Japan, as a
result of their high fuel prices. Their government-controlled market is the
"normal" that the US is now facing. I'm not absolving anyone here, just
pointing out a fact. The Japanese and European car builders are positioned
to come out on top when things get tough. Our domestic builders are
positioned exactly the opposite way.


--snip--
I probably wouldn't argue, but for the fact that the union issue has
made the survival of the Big 3 a moot point. They can no longer
compete and will die. THAT is why I, a Ford man from _waaaay_ back,
bought a Toyota last year. I didn't think Ford would survive to offer
any warranty. (I kept my last truck for 17 years.)

The only way to understand the situation is to take a long historical
view.
The answer to why we're in this fix is the answer to the question of how
we
got here over the long haul.

The first fuel crisis in the 70s?

Long before that. Europe established their high fuel taxes back in the
1930s, when government intrusion in markets was more widely accepted. Now
they have a culture and a car industry based upon those prices and
standards. Smaller, more fuel-efficient cars are their "normal." For us, the
several waves of small-car popularity we've experienced, around 1960, 1975,
and now, are an anomaly in the market. We drop them as soon as things turn
up. In Europe and Japan, they don't.



OK. That's why we have you here, Ed, to set the record straight. Umm,
quickly scanning the wiki, it created the NLRB, which I see as a union
puppet organization. Was it always so?

Not always a "puppet." It was the mechanism that put the Wagner Act into
force. It was helped along by a reversal in Supreme Court decisions in the
mid-'30s. Until that time the Court always sided with the owners, and
basically said that union organizing was unconstitutional.

It was a bizarre time in Constitutional history, well worth studying.

Who has the time, if they were so inclined? I sure don't.

It's important American history.


Maybe he didn't have enough white space into which to pour all the
necessary BS about Euro taxing policies. That would have cut his
1,000 or 1,500 words down to nothing, ah reckon.

What he's left with, though, is a screed that plays to the prejudices of
his
audience. It's not evidence of anything except what dogmatic beliefs those
people already hold.

Nobody's perfect. titter


They never did realize that by producing the wrong cars, they'd
eventually go out of business, losing all market share to competitors
who would build the right (or closer to right) cars.

I'd like to help you identify some stupidity or ill motivation on the part
of management (who I think are intellectually lazy, flabby, and dull, but
not stupid), but that isn't the complete story, either.

It ends the same either way, doesn't it?

It does. With hindsight, it's easy to say they're dummies who screwed up. I
think the truth is more like they're typical short-sighted rust-belt
managers with their eyes on the next quarter or maybe the next year, at
best. And the car industry has never been one that leads or anticipates
problems. It just bounces from one crisis to the next, making money as fast
as they can in between the downturns. They've been more effective at
lobbying and coercing Congress than they have at building a solid industry
that can weather ups and downs.



Have you ever looked at the Consumer Reports graphs for GM cars? For
every year, they have had the worst record of any car maker.

Disclaimer: I haven't had access to those stats for a couple of
decades, but friends have told me that they haven't changed. GM is
still a POS and Ford is sliding toward them with their godawful
transmission problems, etc.

I think they've gotten a lot better, but it's too late. They're like John
McCain in the final weeks -- spinning around looking for a solution.

I don't want to see the Nov 4th results. I really don't. I think I'm
going to have to yet again face an (five in a freakin' row?)
antithetical presidential term and I reallyreallyreally don't want to.
They sure know how to kill patriotism in D.C., don't they? sigh

Because they aren't your favorite candidates? g Hey, when you vote
Libertarian, you can't expect anything except endless heartbreak.


I'm for minimum three-digit IQ in voters. No more of this single digit
crap, OK?

What we need is to re-instill a sense of responsibility for the country as a
whole. When we have a VP candidate whose record is built mostly on squeezing
the oil industry for Alaska's advantage, creaming off a few thousand dollars
for every man, woman, and child in the state, which YOU and I pay for,
indirectly, through higher fuel prices -- and then she claims how much she
loves America -- you have to realize our politics operate in an alternate
universe, where up is down, love is hate, and war is peace.



reason for every occassion in which the US builders started with
efficient
cars, and then dropped them. As Henry Ford II once said, "small cars,
small
profits." They want big profits. They want to sell 6,000 lb. Ford
Extortionist SUV hybrids.

Then God Bless GM's Hummah, eh?

It sure looks like a stockholder's wet dream, eh? Another couple of years
of
cheap gas and a good economy, and it might have expanded into a whole
line:
Hummer sports coupes, convertibles, station wagons, and family sedans.
We'd
all own Hummer-like objects before long.

We'll all be buying 2-bedroom homes with 10-SUV garages!


Ayup, and with unions screwing us out of good money, the labor can
never be lower; it's likely higher than the cost of the rest of the
car parts combined. (WAG)

Your WAG is off by a bit. d8-) Total direct labor cost (averages $43/hour
at
GM, which is the highest, and that includes the legacy benefits of $9/hour
or so for retirees) is around 10% of production cost, but this is a screwy
figure because parts made by outside vendors are counted as materials
costs.
Indirect labor (company labor not involved in production) is something
like
5%. In independent car-parts production, total labor runs 15% - 20% of
production cost. FWIW, materials costs (which include these outside parts)
are roughly 80% of the cost of making a car.

Skewedfigures from a large corporation (or gov't office)? Who ever
heard of _that_?



They lobbied for a big-car
industry; they colluded with the oil companies to get it; they got it.
Now
we bail them out.

Feh!

There's plenty of blame to go around. The car industry and the oil
industry
made that bed, but not without the agreement of consumers. And Congress is
doing what we demand. Someone said here the other day that Congress is
supposed to respond to the demands of the voters. Well, the voters want
big
cars, superhighways, and cheap gas. We got what we demanded. Now we're all
paying for it.

That's what Detroit said. It's not, by a long shot, the whole reality.

Detroit didn't change along with our eco-awareness when the first fuel
crisis hit 30+ years ago. Datsun and Toyota did and they're in good
shape here.

Datsun (Nissan) and Toyota were already there. They didn't have to change at
all.

Yeah, there are still plenty of big-car drivers around,
and they're really nice for cross-country trips like I did to New
Mexico 7 years ago. But the little Hyundai Elantra I rented 2 years
ago was nearly as comfy as the Merc Marquis on the freeway, and it got
me 30mpg at 75-95mph on the Bay Area trip. Big cars are obsolete for
most of the old reasons.

That hasn't stopped them from selling them, though, has it? That's a pact
made in hell, between the car makers and others who benefit from selling big
cars, and from a foolish public that defined their goals to include owning
bigger cars. That's them, plus us.

BTW, if gas prices get below $2.50 (they're already there in my part of NJ)
and stay there while the economy starts to recover from the recession, what
do you think people will be buying again? Little 35-mpg sedans, or
squirrel-crushing, deer-smacking SUVs?


I filled up this morning for $2.46/gal.

I hope it's that low for me tomorrow. I need to fill up. The needle is
just about down to where the light comes on, and I have another load
of pavers to take out. Ugh! That crap's heavy.


Don't forget consumers. We vote, and Congress responds.

Yeah, and we send letters but the CONgresscritters vote the other way
(if the lobbyists' bribes got through.) sigh


Jenkins just selects the right's favorite whipping boys, labor and
Congress,
and blames it all on them. He isn't even close.

I truly hope you're not standing up for either, as they're both guilty
as hell for that and more. They're just not the sole culprits in this
particular case. But, hell, it gave me a chance to whine at 'em
again, so what's yer problem? g

We have met the enemy, and you know who it is. d8-)

Pogo Was Here!


Wrong. Congress is a current problem and we have to fix it. Keeping
them in the forefront is one way of forcing (hopeful) the *******s to
change, though they're extremely sporadic as to the amount they react
to the public eye nowadays.

OK, so Congress kept gas taxes low, and spent money to build highways, and
made it possible for labor to raise their wages -- primarily for the 10%
of
costs represented by direct labor, and maybe half of the other labor
costs,
inside the car companies and outside.

Oh, come on, Ed. Your focus is too tight. The gov't can't even run a
brothel right. I'm talking about all the unnecessary crap they
overspend on every day.

Like the war in Iraq? Or are you referring to Medicare? Have you looked
closely enough at the budget to know where the real savings could be? If so,
where do you want to cut, specifically?



What did they do wrong? Should they have increased gas taxes? Should they
have not built highways? As for labor, they vote too. Should Congress have
ignored their demands? What is it that Congress could have done to
encourage
the building of smaller, fuel efficient cars, that the voters would have
tolerated?

They could have offered reduced import taxes on small cars to the
Japanese (spurring U.S. competition) or rebates to the Big-3 for
producing small cars (monetary incentives.)

The import tax thing was tried with light trucks, and we had those
"voluntary" restraints that kept their market share down. As soon as gas
became cheap again, the US builders switched back to bigger cars. Then came
the SUV, the vehicle from hell that made bundles of money for US carmakers.
They didn't even have to engineer anything new. At first, they just used
pickup-truck frames that had been obsolete for passenger vehicles since
1960.

The "rebates" you're talking about, which supposedly would increase US
production of small cars, are the fuel-economy restrictions that Jenkins
blames for our troubles now. You seem to draw a conclusion opposite to his.
g



And, if Congress is going to contradict the wishes of all of those
colluding
stakeholders, who would have voted for them? Would you vote for them if
their platform was higher gas prices?

g


Clinton lied in court over something that
the entire goddamned world knew was the truth, that he couldn't keep
his pecker in his pants. Others have quit rather than face the
public. shrug

In Europe, they would have given him a medal. g

For using his pecker, not for lying in court, right?

Right.



BTW, if you want to see what 235 mpg look like, take a look at this
prototype from Volkswagen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

Eat your heart out. d8-)

I wouldn't OWN a vubdubya. Ptui! Besides, it couldn't even pull a
small trailer with all my tools in it, let alone the 1,000 pounds of
wood and sand I have in it now.

It must be burdensome. That's business for you.

I've been busy since July, and have done 8 raised bed garden frame in
the past six weeks or so. Fall is making up for a really bad first
half year, thank Buddha.

Well, that's good news. Maybe your business is counter-cyclical.



Viva la Simpsons! Do you watch their show, Ed? I did for a couple
years when it came out, and I thoroughly enjoyed it then. They took
pot shots at everyone.

Same with me. I saw the episode with Crusty the Clown and his new
Canyonero,
which had me rolling on the floor. But I only watch it now when my son is
home and he turns it on.

Yeah, I occasionally see a few minutes and it's always a hoot.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:12:46 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:31:19 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

Holman Jenkins on what caused the rust in the capitol of the Rust Belt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html

The Wall Street Journal, 22 October 2008.

Joe Gwinn
==================
Typical self-serving spin.

An old Yankee saying that applies here "When you need a helping
hand, try the end of your arm."

Consider how much pressure both Ford and GM could have brought to
bear on Congress if they had simply run ads showing their
European diesel cars which deliver 60 mpg, with the tag line
"but Washington won't let you buy one."

I don't care what their motive is. I have driven those cars in Europe,
and they are as advertised. The point is that we don't have the option.
The question is why.
--------------
The logical answer may be that the profit margin was better for
the gigunda cars and trucks,and that's what the factories were
set up for. The actual answer may well be the domestic
management/marketing attitude that "I know what's best for you,"
and "you will get what I want you to get ==and you will like
it==."

I recall my father saying (in the 1950s) that the reason that Detroit
liked big cars is that the profit margins were higher there. This is
when gas cost 27 cents a gallon. As I recall, the rule of thumb then
was that cars cost a dollar a pound.

So, the desire to make and sell large cars may be perfectly rational,
until the demand is somehow constrained.


The fact of the matter is, based on all the historical evidence;
organizations such as corporations and governmental agencies do
have a finite life span.

True, but why is it relevant? The question is about external
constraints. The fact that many companies become ossified is a separate
issue.
Indeed, the article was about external constraints, but this is
exactly the point of discussion. I.e. "external constraints" are
the *EXCUSES* and not the problem.

The fact that people make excuses does not prove that the reasons they
give are necessarily incorrect. One must directly address the proposed
cause, without worrying about their motive for offering it. This is how
one distinguishes reasons from mere excuses.


If the problem is indeed organizational Alzheimer's or "senile
dementia," pumping infinite amounts of taxpayer money in is
simply delaying the inevitable at enormous expense.

True, but this assumes the conclusion, instead of proving it.


It is worth noting that the domestic automotive companies are all
about the same organizational age, and many other venerable
corporations with wonderful track records went into decline about
this same organizational age such as big US steel and US
railroads.

These technologies arrived at about the same time.


"External constraints" as an excuse/rationale does not work in
that the European "external constraints" in terms of emissions,
safety regulations, labor costs, etc. are *HIGHER* than the US
ones, unless of course, you assume that the European management
and employees are smarter than the US management and employees,
which suggests another solution....

The alternate explanation is that there are different constraints
operating in different parts of the world.


Indeed, their attempts to expand into other areas such as real
estate, finance, insurance, banking, data processing, defense
contracting, etc. appear to be major contributing factors to
their present problems, as capital was largely not reinvested in
product design and production facilities (and fully funding their
obligations such as the defined benefit pension plans) but was
dissipated on the purchase of firms such as EDS, and Hughes,
which were promptly run into the ground. Additional huge amounts
of borrowed capital were "invested" in financial operations such
as GMAC and its subsidiaries such as ResCap and Diatech Funding.
Similar examples exist for FoMoCo and Chrysler. The well-proven
banking maxim "borrowing short and lending long is a sure road to
bankruptcy," was totally ignored.

Or this expansion could be a perfectly rational reaction to those
external constraints.

Or it could be a desperate attempt to succeed at something --
anything. Their record is not good. In most cases, a premium
was paid for a successful and going concern, which was quickly
"managed" into the ground, after the acquiring corporation's
policies, procedures, values, etc. were imposed. Unfortunately,
the domestic automotive companies are not unique in this.

GE makes more money from their financial arm than from manufacturing
(excluding the recent panic). Finance and manufacturing usually have
different business cycles, giving some diversity. And GE got into the
finance business so they could make money twice on the sale of large
industrial equipment - they made and then they financed it.


Another factor is the obstinate refusal of management to
distribute large surges/spikes in earnings to the owners
(stockholders) in the form of dividends, to reinvest in their
core business, to fully fund their pension plans*, or just hold
as a cash reserve. Zilog [big Intel competitor at the time with
their Z80 CPU chip] and Exxon is example of this.

[* It is worth remembering that when GM stock was at its peak,
the company was taking huge sums of money *OUT* of their pension
plans under the so called "excess funding" or recapture
provisions. Like the Katzenjammer Kids "they brought it (the
pension funding problems) on themselves."]

Given their constraints, this is rational. Not that I'd be happy about
my pension being "borrowed" for this if I were a GM employee past or
present.


IMNSHO -- Without a total replacement of existing management
[what in the military would be called unit "reconstitution"]
there is no chance of any *SUCCESSFUL* rescue. Salvation may
also require the "reconstitution" of the UAW leadership, as both
groups bring far too much baggage to the table, little of which
has anything to do with operating a profitable automotive company
in the current environment.

Actually, management has already been replaced a couple of times, to no
avail.
Only in the case of Ford [aerospace Boeing] and Chrysler [Home
Depot] was a complete automotive outsider brought in as CEO.
[Wagoner at GM seems to have worked only at GM since college
graduation. FWIW -- he is an accountant and not a "car guy."]

Even in these two cases, the existing and upper management was
retained, which may well be the "kiss of death." "Natural
selection" has filled their ranks with expert political
infighters, system gamers, guerilla fighters, and careerists.
The repeated layoffs, re-engineerings and re-organizations purged
everyone, else particularly the people that were busy doing
constructive/creative [other than accounting] work, such as
getting the product out the door at a profit.

INMSHO what is needed is a total "reconstitution," [which may
very well not succeed at this point] which in military terms is
the replacement of *ALL* a units officers and non-commissioned
officers, other than possibly a few non-command specialists.

Given the track record over the last 10 years, the replacements
can hardly do any worse.

Not clear. Just where does one find people who know the car business
well enough to not blunder even worse, and yet will take such jobs?

In other words, we need people that are both smart enough to do the job
and dumb enough to take the job.

Reminds me of a headhunter call I once got, back in the days when I was
an Operating System guru. The headhuntress was looking for OS people to
work at Wang Computer, which had just fired their entire OS department,
and was now being replaced. The picture that sprung instantly to mind
was of the offered desk, still sticky with bloodstains. I didn't take
the job. Wang failed within the year.

Joe Gwinn

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:40:12
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:19:39 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:
I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:15:48
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
There's plenty of blame to go around. The car industry and the oil industry
made that bed, but not without the agreement of consumers. And Congress is
doing what we demand. Someone said here the other day that Congress is
supposed to respond to the demands of the voters. Well, the voters want big
cars, superhighways, and cheap gas. We got what we demanded. Now we're all
paying for it.

That's what Detroit said. It's not, by a long shot, the whole reality.

Detroit didn't change along with our eco-awareness when the first fuel
crisis hit 30+ years ago. Datsun and Toyota did

Datsun and Toyota (and Volkswagen and SAAB) were already building
cars with gas mileage based on the fact that gas cost the equivalent
of ten dollars a gallon (what ever the equivalent would have been in
1972). It wasn't "Eco_awareness" as "Pocket book awareness." The
sudden drive for more fuel efficiency had more to do with OPEC
deciding to raise the price of crude oil, and gas skyrocketed to 45
cents a gallon.

Oh, that's right. Eco-awareness was triggered by the fuel crisis,
wasn't it?

Eco-awareness (the Ecology movement of the late sixties) wasn't
concerned with Fuel Economy per se, so much as with "not ****ting
where you sit". Non American cars were more fuel efficient not
because "it was good for the ecology", but because gasoline cost so
bloody much.
What killed sales of SUVs and other gas guzzlers wasn't a sudden
"Green Awareness" but $140 oil and $4 gas. What drove sales of the
hybrids and electric cars was the same.
The way to make companies go green is to make it worth their
while. Once upon a time, coal tar was thrown away. Until someone
started figuring out how to make money with it. There's a company
doing Thermal Depolmyerization in Arkansas, using the waste from
Tyson's chicken processing plants. It penciled out when Tyson just
gave the waste away. But when Tyson started charging, it didn't
pencil out, till oil went over $80 a barrel.
Henry Ford had strict standards for the shipping crates coming
into his factories making the model T. Specs on the size, thickness,
and quality of the boards. Turns out, he was using those shipping
crates as the stock to make the floorboards for his cars. "Free"
lumber and less stuff to pay to have hauled away.
And so on.


and they're in good
shape here. Yeah, there are still plenty of big-car drivers around,
and they're really nice for cross-country trips like I did to New
Mexico 7 years ago. But the little Hyundai Elantra I rented 2 years
ago was nearly as comfy as the Merc Marquis on the freeway, and it got
me 30mpg at 75-95mph on the Bay Area trip. Big cars are obsolete for
most of the old reasons.

The land yachts of yore are, with their "floating" road responses
and the like. As Mercedes and others have consistently demonstrated,
it is possible to build a Large Car, which is comfortable to ride in
and a pleasure to drive, and still get good gas mileage.

True. I wouldn't own one of those VWs big brother vehicles, either.
Having worked on them, I'm simply not nearly as impressed by the
"wonderful German engineering" as most folks.

I worked on VW vans for three years - in Germany.

I've seen two of the famous Beemers upside down on the side of the
freeway in LoCal. Evidently, they were in the fast lane and had to hit
their brakes for traffic while on a slight uphill very slight turn and
they rolled over. Some sports car _they_ are. Bwahahahahaha!
I-5 between markers 34 and 36 raises from sea level to maybe 1,000' in
a mile. See the wicked turn here and laugh:
http://www.mapquest.com/mq/10-TMcyPQxISktt

Not everybody who owns a sports car, knows how to drive one.
People who don't do things which get them hurt. It's a lot like 4x4s
- just that much farther to walk once you finally get it stuck.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:31:32 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

One way to look at this is that the world is gravitating toward the
equilibrium that has already been established in Europe and Japan, as a
result of their high fuel prices. Their government-controlled market is the
"normal" that the US is now facing. I'm not absolving anyone here, just
pointing out a fact. The Japanese and European car builders are positioned
to come out on top when things get tough. Our domestic builders are
positioned exactly the opposite way.

Despite 30+ years to have learned the lesson. Effem!


Long before that. Europe established their high fuel taxes back in the
1930s, when government intrusion in markets was more widely accepted. Now
they have a culture and a car industry based upon those prices and
standards. Smaller, more fuel-efficient cars are their "normal." For us, the
several waves of small-car popularity we've experienced, around 1960, 1975,
and now, are an anomaly in the market. We drop them as soon as things turn
up. In Europe and Japan, they don't.

Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.


OK. That's why we have you here, Ed, to set the record straight. Umm,
quickly scanning the wiki, it created the NLRB, which I see as a union
puppet organization. Was it always so?

Not always a "puppet." It was the mechanism that put the Wagner Act into
force. It was helped along by a reversal in Supreme Court decisions in the
mid-'30s. Until that time the Court always sided with the owners, and
basically said that union organizing was unconstitutional.

It was a bizarre time in Constitutional history, well worth studying.

Who has the time, if they were so inclined? I sure don't.

It's important American history.

But a bit boring, eh?


I'd like to help you identify some stupidity or ill motivation on the part
of management (who I think are intellectually lazy, flabby, and dull, but
not stupid), but that isn't the complete story, either.

It ends the same either way, doesn't it?

It does. With hindsight, it's easy to say they're dummies who screwed up. I
think the truth is more like they're typical short-sighted rust-belt
managers with their eyes on the next quarter or maybe the next year, at
best. And the car industry has never been one that leads or anticipates
problems. It just bounces from one crisis to the next, making money as fast
as they can in between the downturns. They've been more effective at
lobbying and coercing Congress than they have at building a solid industry
that can weather ups and downs.



Have you ever looked at the Consumer Reports graphs for GM cars? For
every year, they have had the worst record of any car maker.

Disclaimer: I haven't had access to those stats for a couple of
decades, but friends have told me that they haven't changed. GM is
still a POS and Ford is sliding toward them with their godawful
transmission problems, etc.

I think they've gotten a lot better, but it's too late. They're like John
McCain in the final weeks -- spinning around looking for a solution.

I don't want to see the Nov 4th results. I really don't. I think I'm
going to have to yet again face an (five in a freakin' row?)
antithetical presidential term and I reallyreallyreally don't want to.
They sure know how to kill patriotism in D.C., don't they? sigh

Because they aren't your favorite candidates? g Hey, when you vote
Libertarian, you can't expect anything except endless heartbreak.

I'm still a Libertarian at heart but won't be voting for any
Libertarian presidents soon. You convinced me of the heartbreak.


I'm for minimum three-digit IQ in voters. No more of this single digit
crap, OK?

What we need is to re-instill a sense of responsibility for the country as a
whole.

Agreed! Do you have any ideas as to how to pull that off?


Detroit didn't change along with our eco-awareness when the first fuel
crisis hit 30+ years ago. Datsun and Toyota did and they're in good
shape here.

Datsun (Nissan) and Toyota were already there. They didn't have to change at
all.

Verily.


Yeah, there are still plenty of big-car drivers around,
and they're really nice for cross-country trips like I did to New
Mexico 7 years ago. But the little Hyundai Elantra I rented 2 years
ago was nearly as comfy as the Merc Marquis on the freeway, and it got
me 30mpg at 75-95mph on the Bay Area trip. Big cars are obsolete for
most of the old reasons.

That hasn't stopped them from selling them, though, has it? That's a pact
made in hell, between the car makers and others who benefit from selling big
cars, and from a foolish public that defined their goals to include owning
bigger cars. That's them, plus us.

In a word: Soccermoms. 90mph to school and shopping with one Mom and
one kid in that huge old Suburban/Yukon/Expedition with the 500
engine. sigh


Don't forget consumers. We vote, and Congress responds.

So don't vote. It only _encourages_ them.


Oh, come on, Ed. Your focus is too tight. The gov't can't even run a
brothel right. I'm talking about all the unnecessary crap they
overspend on every day.

Like the war in Iraq? Or are you referring to Medicare? Have you looked
closely enough at the budget to know where the real savings could be? If so,
where do you want to cut, specifically?

The last time we discussed this, I wanted out of the war and to snip a
couple dozen alphabet agencies off the list. You made fun of me for
even discussing the agencies and their piddly hundreds of millions.
That's enough discussion with you on budget, TYVM. g


They could have offered reduced import taxes on small cars to the
Japanese (spurring U.S. competition) or rebates to the Big-3 for
producing small cars (monetary incentives.)

The import tax thing was tried with light trucks, and we had those
"voluntary" restraints that kept their market share down. As soon as gas
became cheap again, the US builders switched back to bigger cars. Then came
the SUV, the vehicle from hell that made bundles of money for US carmakers.
They didn't even have to engineer anything new. At first, they just used
pickup-truck frames that had been obsolete for passenger vehicles since
1960.

The "rebates" you're talking about, which supposedly would increase US
production of small cars, are the fuel-economy restrictions that Jenkins
blames for our troubles now. You seem to draw a conclusion opposite to his.
g

My whining about congress didn't automatically align me with Jenkins.
You just inferred that when I didn't swat his discourse. shrug


It must be burdensome. That's business for you.

I've been busy since July, and have done 8 raised bed garden frame in
the past six weeks or so. Fall is making up for a really bad first
half year, thank Buddha.

Well, that's good news. Maybe your business is counter-cyclical.

I think the fact that the market didn't fold had something to do with
it. My customers are usually old farts (like you and they respond
to the assinine "The Sky is Falling!" crap from the media.

The handyman biz is usually hottest from March or April to September
or early October, when the rains hit. My web design biz usually rides
the opposite months. They're fairly complementary.

But I'm still living hand to mouth. Happiest memories include the
occasional comma in my bank balance. sigh

--
"The latest documents released this week showed
that priests with drug, alcohol and sexual abuse
problems continued in the ministry as recently as
two years ago. That doesn't sound like a church,
it sounds like Congress with holy water." -Jay Leno

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Henry Ford had strict standards for the shipping crates coming
into his factories making the model T. Specs on the size, thickness,
and quality of the boards. Turns out, he was using those shipping
crates as the stock to make the floorboards for his cars. "Free"
lumber and less stuff to pay to have hauled away.
And so on.


I seem to remember he had a booming grill and charcoal business. I guess driving out into
the country to have a picnic was part of a marketing idea.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:31:32 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

One way to look at this is that the world is gravitating toward the
equilibrium that has already been established in Europe and Japan, as a
result of their high fuel prices. Their government-controlled market is
the
"normal" that the US is now facing. I'm not absolving anyone here, just
pointing out a fact. The Japanese and European car builders are positioned
to come out on top when things get tough. Our domestic builders are
positioned exactly the opposite way.

Despite 30+ years to have learned the lesson. Effem!


Long before that. Europe established their high fuel taxes back in the
1930s, when government intrusion in markets was more widely accepted. Now
they have a culture and a car industry based upon those prices and
standards. Smaller, more fuel-efficient cars are their "normal." For us,
the
several waves of small-car popularity we've experienced, around 1960,
1975,
and now, are an anomaly in the market. We drop them as soon as things turn
up. In Europe and Japan, they don't.

Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

"We" being Americans in general. "We" like big cars and go back to them when
the crisis is over. "I" am one of them in most ways, except that I have
always preferred small cars, and have never owned a big one, except for a
couple of cargo vans.



OK. That's why we have you here, Ed, to set the record straight. Umm,
quickly scanning the wiki, it created the NLRB, which I see as a union
puppet organization. Was it always so?

Not always a "puppet." It was the mechanism that put the Wagner Act into
force. It was helped along by a reversal in Supreme Court decisions in
the
mid-'30s. Until that time the Court always sided with the owners, and
basically said that union organizing was unconstitutional.

It was a bizarre time in Constitutional history, well worth studying.

Who has the time, if they were so inclined? I sure don't.

It's important American history.

But a bit boring, eh?

Not if you get excited about constitutional law. I don't know why I do; I
find the practice of law in general to be boring.



I'd like to help you identify some stupidity or ill motivation on the
part
of management (who I think are intellectually lazy, flabby, and dull,
but
not stupid), but that isn't the complete story, either.

It ends the same either way, doesn't it?

It does. With hindsight, it's easy to say they're dummies who screwed up.
I
think the truth is more like they're typical short-sighted rust-belt
managers with their eyes on the next quarter or maybe the next year, at
best. And the car industry has never been one that leads or anticipates
problems. It just bounces from one crisis to the next, making money as
fast
as they can in between the downturns. They've been more effective at
lobbying and coercing Congress than they have at building a solid industry
that can weather ups and downs.



Have you ever looked at the Consumer Reports graphs for GM cars? For
every year, they have had the worst record of any car maker.

Disclaimer: I haven't had access to those stats for a couple of
decades, but friends have told me that they haven't changed. GM is
still a POS and Ford is sliding toward them with their godawful
transmission problems, etc.

I think they've gotten a lot better, but it's too late. They're like
John
McCain in the final weeks -- spinning around looking for a solution.

I don't want to see the Nov 4th results. I really don't. I think I'm
going to have to yet again face an (five in a freakin' row?)
antithetical presidential term and I reallyreallyreally don't want to.
They sure know how to kill patriotism in D.C., don't they? sigh

Because they aren't your favorite candidates? g Hey, when you vote
Libertarian, you can't expect anything except endless heartbreak.

I'm still a Libertarian at heart but won't be voting for any
Libertarian presidents soon. You convinced me of the heartbreak.

They're pretty dull, too. I saw Bob Barr give an interview last week and all
I could think of was Buckley's line about libertarians being "ingeniously
simple-minded." g



I'm for minimum three-digit IQ in voters. No more of this single digit
crap, OK?

What we need is to re-instill a sense of responsibility for the country as
a
whole.

Agreed! Do you have any ideas as to how to pull that off?

Nope. If I did, I'd run for some office.


Detroit didn't change along with our eco-awareness when the first fuel
crisis hit 30+ years ago. Datsun and Toyota did and they're in good
shape here.

Datsun (Nissan) and Toyota were already there. They didn't have to change
at
all.

Verily.


Yeah, there are still plenty of big-car drivers around,
and they're really nice for cross-country trips like I did to New
Mexico 7 years ago. But the little Hyundai Elantra I rented 2 years
ago was nearly as comfy as the Merc Marquis on the freeway, and it got
me 30mpg at 75-95mph on the Bay Area trip. Big cars are obsolete for
most of the old reasons.

That hasn't stopped them from selling them, though, has it? That's a pact
made in hell, between the car makers and others who benefit from selling
big
cars, and from a foolish public that defined their goals to include owning
bigger cars. That's them, plus us.

In a word: Soccermoms. 90mph to school and shopping with one Mom and
one kid in that huge old Suburban/Yukon/Expedition with the 500
engine. sigh


Don't forget consumers. We vote, and Congress responds.

So don't vote. It only _encourages_ them.


Oh, come on, Ed. Your focus is too tight. The gov't can't even run a
brothel right. I'm talking about all the unnecessary crap they
overspend on every day.

Like the war in Iraq? Or are you referring to Medicare? Have you looked
closely enough at the budget to know where the real savings could be? If
so,
where do you want to cut, specifically?

The last time we discussed this, I wanted out of the war and to snip a
couple dozen alphabet agencies off the list. You made fun of me for
even discussing the agencies and their piddly hundreds of millions.
That's enough discussion with you on budget, TYVM. g

g Follow the money. It ain't the EPA or the Education Department.



They could have offered reduced import taxes on small cars to the
Japanese (spurring U.S. competition) or rebates to the Big-3 for
producing small cars (monetary incentives.)

The import tax thing was tried with light trucks, and we had those
"voluntary" restraints that kept their market share down. As soon as gas
became cheap again, the US builders switched back to bigger cars. Then
came
the SUV, the vehicle from hell that made bundles of money for US
carmakers.
They didn't even have to engineer anything new. At first, they just used
pickup-truck frames that had been obsolete for passenger vehicles since
1960.

The "rebates" you're talking about, which supposedly would increase US
production of small cars, are the fuel-economy restrictions that Jenkins
blames for our troubles now. You seem to draw a conclusion opposite to
his.
g

My whining about congress didn't automatically align me with Jenkins.
You just inferred that when I didn't swat his discourse. shrug


It must be burdensome. That's business for you.

I've been busy since July, and have done 8 raised bed garden frame in
the past six weeks or so. Fall is making up for a really bad first
half year, thank Buddha.

Well, that's good news. Maybe your business is counter-cyclical.

I think the fact that the market didn't fold had something to do with
it. My customers are usually old farts (like you and they respond
to the assinine "The Sky is Falling!" crap from the media.

The handyman biz is usually hottest from March or April to September
or early October, when the rains hit. My web design biz usually rides
the opposite months. They're fairly complementary.

But I'm still living hand to mouth. Happiest memories include the
occasional comma in my bank balance. sigh

Be glad you have work. Some people are really sucking wind. Even Merck is
dropping 7,000 jobs, and I thought that Big Pharma was pretty immune to all
of this.

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:


Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

I owned an a few V8 land crushers, then an Escort, then a Ranger, now a Saturn. I guess
the ranger was an economy truck.

The light 5x8 trailer has made owning smaller vehicles practical for the long term.

Some people love cars, powerful cars, others just want a cheap ride that gets them there
reliably. Count me in the latter group.


Wes

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:18:45 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news

Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

"We" being Americans in general. "We" like big cars and go back to them when
the crisis is over. "I" am one of them in most ways, except that I have
always preferred small cars, and have never owned a big one, except for a
couple of cargo vans.

I've always preferred larger cars, then trucks, because I have always
been busy moving something somewhere and doing everything I possibly
could by myself.

Then again, my first station wagon was for them wimmenfolk. Back into
the drive-in, drop the tailgate until we get tired of the movie, then
roll the windows up and fog them puppies... Ah, what fond memories I
have of the wagons.


Who has the time, if they were so inclined? I sure don't.

It's important American history.

But a bit boring, eh?

Not if you get excited about constitutional law. I don't know why I do; I
find the practice of law in general to be boring.

Ditto the latter. I used to kid my cousin, Bruce, about his being the
black sheep in the family. I was just the alcoholic, but -he- went to
Duke.


I'm still a Libertarian at heart but won't be voting for any
Libertarian presidents soon. You convinced me of the heartbreak.

They're pretty dull, too. I saw Bob Barr give an interview last week and all
I could think of was Buckley's line about libertarians being "ingeniously
simple-minded." g

snort


I'm for minimum three-digit IQ in voters. No more of this single digit
crap, OK?

What we need is to re-instill a sense of responsibility for the country as
a
whole.

Agreed! Do you have any ideas as to how to pull that off?

Nope. If I did, I'd run for some office.

I'd vote for you, too. Can I fax in my Jersey vote from Oregon?


where do you want to cut, specifically?

The last time we discussed this, I wanted out of the war and to snip a
couple dozen alphabet agencies off the list. You made fun of me for
even discussing the agencies and their piddly hundreds of millions.
That's enough discussion with you on budget, TYVM. g

g Follow the money. It ain't the EPA or the Education Department.

Even if we cut out the war wound, we'd still die, hemmorhaging from
the myriad gashes called the EPA, DHS, BATFE, NEC, NEA, etc. We have
to find all the waste and cut it at once to recover, to reverse the
gawdawful bleeding we're doing with the deficits and federal debt.


But I'm still living hand to mouth. Happiest memories include the
occasional comma in my bank balance. sigh

Be glad you have work. Some people are really sucking wind. Even Merck is
dropping 7,000 jobs, and I thought that Big Pharma was pretty immune to all
of this.

Oh, I am exceedingly grateful, and I'm trying to take every job that
comes my way, including doing things I wouldn't normally do. I need to
save up for the sparse winter. I need to buy a new mower and start
taking all the work there. I get at least 3 calls a week to mow yards,
and if they don't balk at $30/hr, I won't.

Home and Garden Handyman = mowing lawns? I still don't understand why
I get all those weed-pulling/lawn-mowing calls. I might hire some
mowers for next year when the calls come in so I can capitalize on it.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:12:43 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:


Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

I owned an a few V8 land crushers, then an Escort, then a Ranger, now a Saturn. I guess
the ranger was an economy truck.

The light 5x8 trailer has made owning smaller vehicles practical for the long term.

Some people love cars, powerful cars, others just want a cheap ride that gets them there
reliably. Count me in the latter group.

My favorite auto of all time was my '70 AMC Javelin. A Donahue
Special, it started with 375hp @ 420# torque in front of a Borg T-10,
but when I rebuilt it, the HP cam popped her up to 425hp and nearly
500# torque. I realized how powerful it was when I spun a 100# manhole
cover out of its hole and down the street several blocks. And it took
corners hard enough to toss people in the back seat from side to side
before they could even try to hang on or put their seatbelts on. What
a fun ride. A very close second is the new Tundra. It's like a Caddie
inside with a nice, large cargo hole and a bed behind it.

I was really impressed with that little Hyundai Elantra, though. 30mpg
is nice.

I filled the truck up today and got a nice surprise: $60.26 to fill
and only $2.999/gal. It's back under $3/gal for the first time in FAR
too long. I envy you your $2.46/gal, though. Where does Jersey get
her gas? My neighbor thinks South America is the source.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:12:43 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:


Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

I owned an a few V8 land crushers, then an Escort, then a Ranger, now a
Saturn. I guess
the ranger was an economy truck.

The light 5x8 trailer has made owning smaller vehicles practical for the
long term.

Some people love cars, powerful cars, others just want a cheap ride that
gets them there
reliably. Count me in the latter group.

My favorite auto of all time was my '70 AMC Javelin. A Donahue
Special, it started with 375hp @ 420# torque in front of a Borg T-10,
but when I rebuilt it, the HP cam popped her up to 425hp and nearly
500# torque. I realized how powerful it was when I spun a 100# manhole
cover out of its hole and down the street several blocks. And it took
corners hard enough to toss people in the back seat from side to side
before they could even try to hang on or put their seatbelts on. What
a fun ride. A very close second is the new Tundra. It's like a Caddie
inside with a nice, large cargo hole and a bed behind it.

I was really impressed with that little Hyundai Elantra, though. 30mpg
is nice.

I filled the truck up today and got a nice surprise: $60.26 to fill
and only $2.999/gal. It's back under $3/gal for the first time in FAR
too long. I envy you your $2.46/gal, though. Where does Jersey get
her gas? My neighbor thinks South America is the source.

Today, gas here is $2.379. As for where we get it, I have no idea. We have
some refineries here. Maybe we suck the oil out of a pipeline that runs to
New York, like they do in Nigeria. g

Something encouraging: NJ just approved the construction of a good sized
offshore wind farm. It will be something like 12 miles out from the coast.
Let there be more of them...

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:03:58 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:12:43 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:


Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

I owned an a few V8 land crushers, then an Escort, then a Ranger, now a
Saturn. I guess
the ranger was an economy truck.

The light 5x8 trailer has made owning smaller vehicles practical for the
long term.

Some people love cars, powerful cars, others just want a cheap ride that
gets them there
reliably. Count me in the latter group.

My favorite auto of all time was my '70 AMC Javelin. A Donahue
Special, it started with 375hp @ 420# torque in front of a Borg T-10,
but when I rebuilt it, the HP cam popped her up to 425hp and nearly
500# torque. I realized how powerful it was when I spun a 100# manhole
cover out of its hole and down the street several blocks. And it took
corners hard enough to toss people in the back seat from side to side
before they could even try to hang on or put their seatbelts on. What
a fun ride. A very close second is the new Tundra. It's like a Caddie
inside with a nice, large cargo hole and a bed behind it.

I was really impressed with that little Hyundai Elantra, though. 30mpg
is nice.

I filled the truck up today and got a nice surprise: $60.26 to fill
and only $2.999/gal. It's back under $3/gal for the first time in FAR
too long. I envy you your $2.46/gal, though. Where does Jersey get
her gas? My neighbor thinks South America is the source.

Today, gas here is $2.379. As for where we get it, I have no idea. We have
some refineries here. Maybe we suck the oil out of a pipeline that runs to
New York, like they do in Nigeria. g

A Nigeria to New York pipeline? Whoda thunk? In Oregon, we pray to
the Energy Fairy, and she's a high-maintenance bitz.


Something encouraging: NJ just approved the construction of a good sized
offshore wind farm. It will be something like 12 miles out from the coast.
Let there be more of them...

What of the poor albatross? Oh, the humani^H^H^H^H^H^Hfaunanity!

I'm for more wind and solar power, too, but nukes will save us. One
large problem with that is that you can't take the coal miners,
retrain them, and have them watch nuke gauges. They'd be out of work
after retraining to build the plants.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:38:46 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I filled the truck up today and got a nice surprise: $60.26 to fill
and only $2.999/gal. It's back under $3/gal for the first time in FAR
too long. I envy you your $2.46/gal, though. Where does Jersey get
her gas? My neighbor thinks South America is the source.


Godammm that Bush!! I bought gas at $4.59 not too many months
ago...now its down to $2.99 here in Cali

That ebile Shrub!

Gunner, laughing his ass off at the Leftists who claimed it was Bush
who caused the price spike upwards..but wont appologize for being
wrong...or for giving him credit for it coming down ....


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:38:46 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I filled the truck up today and got a nice surprise: $60.26 to fill
and only $2.999/gal. It's back under $3/gal for the first time in FAR
too long. I envy you your $2.46/gal, though. Where does Jersey get
her gas? My neighbor thinks South America is the source.


Godammm that Bush!! I bought gas at $4.59 not too many months
ago...now its down to $2.99 here in Cali

That ebile Shrub!

Gunner, laughing his ass off at the Leftists who claimed it was Bush
who caused the price spike upwards..but wont appologize for being
wrong...or for giving him credit for it coming down ....

That's because Bush is hiding under the covers waiting for it to stop. He
has no idea what drove it up *or* down.

Neither do you. You're laughing in an asylum.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:03:58 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:12:43 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:


Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

I owned an a few V8 land crushers, then an Escort, then a Ranger, now a
Saturn. I guess
the ranger was an economy truck.

The light 5x8 trailer has made owning smaller vehicles practical for the
long term.

Some people love cars, powerful cars, others just want a cheap ride that
gets them there
reliably. Count me in the latter group.

My favorite auto of all time was my '70 AMC Javelin. A Donahue
Special, it started with 375hp @ 420# torque in front of a Borg T-10,
but when I rebuilt it, the HP cam popped her up to 425hp and nearly
500# torque. I realized how powerful it was when I spun a 100# manhole
cover out of its hole and down the street several blocks. And it took
corners hard enough to toss people in the back seat from side to side
before they could even try to hang on or put their seatbelts on. What
a fun ride. A very close second is the new Tundra. It's like a Caddie
inside with a nice, large cargo hole and a bed behind it.

I was really impressed with that little Hyundai Elantra, though. 30mpg
is nice.

I filled the truck up today and got a nice surprise: $60.26 to fill
and only $2.999/gal. It's back under $3/gal for the first time in FAR
too long. I envy you your $2.46/gal, though. Where does Jersey get
her gas? My neighbor thinks South America is the source.

Today, gas here is $2.379. As for where we get it, I have no idea. We have
some refineries here. Maybe we suck the oil out of a pipeline that runs to
New York, like they do in Nigeria. g

A Nigeria to New York pipeline? Whoda thunk? In Oregon, we pray to
the Energy Fairy, and she's a high-maintenance bitz.


Something encouraging: NJ just approved the construction of a good sized
offshore wind farm. It will be something like 12 miles out from the coast.
Let there be more of them...

What of the poor albatross? Oh, the humani^H^H^H^H^H^Hfaunanity!

I'm for more wind and solar power, too, but nukes will save us. One
large problem with that is that you can't take the coal miners,
retrain them, and have them watch nuke gauges. They'd be out of work
after retraining to build the plants.

Right. But they can find some other reason to dig holes in the ground.
There's always something down there.

I'm waiting for the Mr. Fusion, like Doc had on "Back To The Future." That
will solve everything.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:18:45 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news

Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

"We" being Americans in general. "We" like big cars and go back to them
when
the crisis is over. "I" am one of them in most ways, except that I have
always preferred small cars, and have never owned a big one, except for a
couple of cargo vans.

I've always preferred larger cars, then trucks, because I have always
been busy moving something somewhere and doing everything I possibly
could by myself.

Then again, my first station wagon was for them wimmenfolk. Back into
the drive-in, drop the tailgate until we get tired of the movie, then
roll the windows up and fog them puppies... Ah, what fond memories I
have of the wagons.

g My dad always had a big wagon or a Ford Bronco that I could borrow for
that. He was always suspicious when I wanted to borrow it on a Saturday
night -- especially when I had an Alfa Romeo or an MG in the driveway.


Who has the time, if they were so inclined? I sure don't.

It's important American history.

But a bit boring, eh?

Not if you get excited about constitutional law. I don't know why I do; I
find the practice of law in general to be boring.

Ditto the latter. I used to kid my cousin, Bruce, about his being the
black sheep in the family. I was just the alcoholic, but -he- went to
Duke.


I'm still a Libertarian at heart but won't be voting for any
Libertarian presidents soon. You convinced me of the heartbreak.

They're pretty dull, too. I saw Bob Barr give an interview last week and
all
I could think of was Buckley's line about libertarians being "ingeniously
simple-minded." g

snort


I'm for minimum three-digit IQ in voters. No more of this single digit
crap, OK?

What we need is to re-instill a sense of responsibility for the country
as
a
whole.

Agreed! Do you have any ideas as to how to pull that off?

Nope. If I did, I'd run for some office.

I'd vote for you, too.

Thanks, but that wouldn't be a good idea. I'm not sure I'd vote for myself.
g

Can I fax in my Jersey vote from Oregon?

Sure, we'll take votes from anywhere.



where do you want to cut, specifically?

The last time we discussed this, I wanted out of the war and to snip a
couple dozen alphabet agencies off the list. You made fun of me for
even discussing the agencies and their piddly hundreds of millions.
That's enough discussion with you on budget, TYVM. g

g Follow the money. It ain't the EPA or the Education Department.

Even if we cut out the war wound, we'd still die, hemmorhaging from
the myriad gashes called the EPA, DHS, BATFE, NEC, NEA, etc. We have
to find all the waste and cut it at once to recover, to reverse the
gawdawful bleeding we're doing with the deficits and federal debt.


But I'm still living hand to mouth. Happiest memories include the
occasional comma in my bank balance. sigh

Be glad you have work. Some people are really sucking wind. Even Merck is
dropping 7,000 jobs, and I thought that Big Pharma was pretty immune to
all
of this.

Oh, I am exceedingly grateful, and I'm trying to take every job that
comes my way, including doing things I wouldn't normally do. I need to
save up for the sparse winter. I need to buy a new mower and start
taking all the work there. I get at least 3 calls a week to mow yards,
and if they don't balk at $30/hr, I won't.

Home and Garden Handyman = mowing lawns? I still don't understand why
I get all those weed-pulling/lawn-mowing calls. I might hire some
mowers for next year when the calls come in so I can capitalize on it.

And hire some kids to help you, if the business grows. Damn, there are more
lawn service companies around here than there are lawns, and they're all
driving damned nice, new trucks. There must be some money in it.

Full-service landscaping around here now typically includes mowing and other
maintenance. Once somebody with some money gets a taste of having somebody
else dothat work, they seem to like having it *all* done.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:36:45 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
Then again, my first station wagon was for them wimmenfolk. Back into
the drive-in, drop the tailgate until we get tired of the movie, then
roll the windows up and fog them puppies... Ah, what fond memories I
have of the wagons.

g My dad always had a big wagon or a Ford Bronco that I could borrow for
that. He was always suspicious when I wanted to borrow it on a Saturday
night -- especially when I had an Alfa Romeo or an MG in the driveway.

But he always had a smile when he figured it out, right?


Home and Garden Handyman = mowing lawns? I still don't understand why
I get all those weed-pulling/lawn-mowing calls. I might hire some
mowers for next year when the calls come in so I can capitalize on it.

And hire some kids to help you, if the business grows. Damn, there are more
lawn service companies around here than there are lawns, and they're all
driving damned nice, new trucks. There must be some money in it.

I can't hire kids. I need to provide Workmen's Comp insurance for
them, at exhorbitant rates, so I have to rent temp workers from the
agencies at twice the hourly rate. That covers their insurance, agency
profits, etc.


Full-service landscaping around here now typically includes mowing and other
maintenance. Once somebody with some money gets a taste of having somebody
else dothat work, they seem to like having it *all* done.

Yeah, mowing and weeding are not fun jobs, but I'm happy to be
working. I'm not mowing but I did take a weeding, spraying, and
pruning job for an elderly couple. I bid twice the price of the next
guy but I gave her a written estimate of all items clearly laid out
(on my color letterhead--$200 color laser printer and an hour in Open
Office), I had my silkscreened company shirt on, I had the signs on
the truck, and insurance, bond, and license info was readily
available to her. Trust can't be bought.

I'm going to be taking the Master Gardener program from the county
Extension offices next year, mostly for myself, but it's another
something to hang on my wall, too. And pics of that go in my
portfolio to add depth. It's cheap ($100 cash for 11 weeks of 9-4
Thursday classes) and expensive (70 hours community service
afterward.) If I can wear my company shirt for the volunteer work,
it'll be beneficial to both parties involved with more work coming my
way.

Some day I'll be able to afford a mill of my own.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:22:59 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:03:58 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Something encouraging: NJ just approved the construction of a good sized
offshore wind farm. It will be something like 12 miles out from the coast.
Let there be more of them...

What of the poor albatross? Oh, the humani^H^H^H^H^H^Hfaunanity!

I'm for more wind and solar power, too, but nukes will save us. One
large problem with that is that you can't take the coal miners,
retrain them, and have them watch nuke gauges. They'd be out of work
after retraining to build the plants.

Right. But they can find some other reason to dig holes in the ground.
There's always something down there.

Y'know, they mightcould be moved over into the geothermal arena.


I'm waiting for the Mr. Fusion, like Doc had on "Back To The Future." That
will solve everything.

I LOVED that invention! Those movies were great fun.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:36:45 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
Then again, my first station wagon was for them wimmenfolk. Back into
the drive-in, drop the tailgate until we get tired of the movie, then
roll the windows up and fog them puppies... Ah, what fond memories I
have of the wagons.

g My dad always had a big wagon or a Ford Bronco that I could borrow for
that. He was always suspicious when I wanted to borrow it on a Saturday
night -- especially when I had an Alfa Romeo or an MG in the driveway.

But he always had a smile when he figured it out, right?

Yeah. I always got asked how the Bronco got all that mud on it, too. d8-)


Home and Garden Handyman = mowing lawns? I still don't understand why
I get all those weed-pulling/lawn-mowing calls. I might hire some
mowers for next year when the calls come in so I can capitalize on it.

And hire some kids to help you, if the business grows. Damn, there are
more
lawn service companies around here than there are lawns, and they're all
driving damned nice, new trucks. There must be some money in it.

I can't hire kids. I need to provide Workmen's Comp insurance for
them, at exhorbitant rates, so I have to rent temp workers from the
agencies at twice the hourly rate. That covers their insurance, agency
profits, etc.

Eh, too bad. Kids aren't as expendable as they used to be. g


Full-service landscaping around here now typically includes mowing and
other
maintenance. Once somebody with some money gets a taste of having somebody
else dothat work, they seem to like having it *all* done.

Yeah, mowing and weeding are not fun jobs, but I'm happy to be
working. I'm not mowing but I did take a weeding, spraying, and
pruning job for an elderly couple. I bid twice the price of the next
guy but I gave her a written estimate of all items clearly laid out
(on my color letterhead--$200 color laser printer and an hour in Open
Office), I had my silkscreened company shirt on, I had the signs on
the truck, and insurance, bond, and license info was readily
available to her. Trust can't be bought.

I'm going to be taking the Master Gardener program from the county
Extension offices next year...

Ha! I started that in my county six or eight years ago, but I had too many
deadlines then and couldn't complete it. It was a daytime program. I'd like
to do it some day.


mostly for myself, but it's another
something to hang on my wall, too. And pics of that go in my
portfolio to add depth. It's cheap ($100 cash for 11 weeks of 9-4
Thursday classes) and expensive (70 hours community service
afterward.) If I can wear my company shirt for the volunteer work,
it'll be beneficial to both parties involved with more work coming my
way.

Some day I'll be able to afford a mill of my own.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:49:32 -0700
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:12:43 -0400, Wes wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

I owned an a few V8 land crushers, then an Escort, then a Ranger, now a Saturn. I guess
the ranger was an economy truck.

The light 5x8 trailer has made owning smaller vehicles practical for the long term.

Some people love cars, powerful cars, others just want a cheap ride that gets them there
reliably. Count me in the latter group.


Wes


Thats the difference between a Harley owner and owners of Hondas and
BMWs...style over substance.

Do you want a lifestyle..or a reliable comfortable ride from point A
to B.

I want that reliable transport - which is a lifestyle statement in
and of itself.
I wish I could afford to get bike now, it would cut travel costs a
lot. I used to live down the block from the church, I could walk. But
my work schedule didn't allow me to get to midweek services. Now I
live 13 miles from the church, but my work schedule does allow me to
go to the mid week services.
I still need to get a job, so I can afford my lifestyle. :-)


pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:14:40 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:49:32 -0700
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:12:43 -0400, Wes wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

I owned an a few V8 land crushers, then an Escort, then a Ranger, now a Saturn. I guess
the ranger was an economy truck.

The light 5x8 trailer has made owning smaller vehicles practical for the long term.

Some people love cars, powerful cars, others just want a cheap ride that gets them there
reliably. Count me in the latter group.


Wes


Thats the difference between a Harley owner and owners of Hondas and
BMWs...style over substance.

Do you want a lifestyle..or a reliable comfortable ride from point A
to B.

I want that reliable transport - which is a lifestyle statement in
and of itself.

A distinction most Harley owners are unable to recognize.

I wish I could afford to get bike now, it would cut travel costs a
lot. I used to live down the block from the church, I could walk. But
my work schedule didn't allow me to get to midweek services. Now I
live 13 miles from the church, but my work schedule does allow me to
go to the mid week services.
I still need to get a job, so I can afford my lifestyle. :-)


pyotr


Scooters can be had for very little money. And for your needs, even a
street legal 125 cc bike would do.

Check Craigslist, network with everyone you know.... you know the
drill. There are literally millions of small motorcycles collecting
dust in back yards and garages. Many of which only need some cleanup,
duct tape on the seat and fresh gas.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:31:36 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:14:40 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:49:32 -0700
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:12:43 -0400, Wes wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
Who is your "we" here, Ed? I generally find that once people drive an
economy car, they stick with them from then on.

I owned an a few V8 land crushers, then an Escort, then a Ranger, now a Saturn. I guess
the ranger was an economy truck.

The light 5x8 trailer has made owning smaller vehicles practical for the long term.

Some people love cars, powerful cars, others just want a cheap ride that gets them there
reliably. Count me in the latter group.


Wes


Thats the difference between a Harley owner and owners of Hondas and
BMWs...style over substance.

Do you want a lifestyle..or a reliable comfortable ride from point A
to B.

I want that reliable transport - which is a lifestyle statement in
and of itself.

A distinction most Harley owners are unable to recognize.

I'll leave that one alone.


I wish I could afford to get bike now, it would cut travel costs a
lot. I used to live down the block from the church, I could walk. But
my work schedule didn't allow me to get to midweek services. Now I
live 13 miles from the church, but my work schedule does allow me to
go to the mid week services.
I still need to get a job, so I can afford my lifestyle. :-)

Scooters can be had for very little money. And for your needs, even a
street legal 125 cc bike would do.

Check Craigslist, network with everyone you know.... you know the
drill. There are literally millions of small motorcycles collecting
dust in back yards and garages. Many of which only need some cleanup,
duct tape on the seat and fresh gas.

Puhleeeze! Reupholstery is a frustrating but simple task. Nix the
duct tape, eh? Some need valve adjustments to run right, too; another
simple fix given a couple hours of time and a service manual, which is
readily available for most small bikes.

(Just don't look for a Honda Street 90, Pete. They're going for
thousands of dollars as collector's items. thud )

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.