ehaase

I wonder if an Alpha Buick would be more or less expensive than the Epsilon II Buick.

I think that's what the Alpha platform will be. I think GM is doing exactly what you want.

I hope none of this will affect you.

The current financial condition of the U.S. will force us into a non-interventionist foreign policy someday, even though McCain and the neo-cons don't realize it. We should go back to avoiding entangling foreign alliances as George Washington advised.

Unless Buick gets a Delta or Alpha product ( both doubtful) or a stretched Epsilon II to replace the Lucerne, it looks like 4 years from now Buick will have 2 vehicles - the Enclave and the LaCrosse. Maybe GM will use Buick to compete with the FWD Lexus (ES and RX with the LaCrosse and Enclave) and use Cadillac to compete with the RWD Lexus, as well as Mercedes and BMW.

My German great aunt gave me a huge amount of Legos when I was a little boy, and they are still sitting in a large wooden box my father made out in my garage. I never married and never had a son so I have never given them to anyone even though I haven't played with them since 1975.

The Fit Hybrid is going to be very tempting, as some say gasoline may be $12 to $15/gallon within a few years.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ In a veto proof margin, no doubt enhanced by election political pandering, the House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure. The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow. The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto. The legislation also creates a Justice Department task force to aggressively investigate gasoline price gouging and energy market manipulation. "This bill guarantees that oil prices will reflect supply and demand economic rules, instead of wildly speculative and perhaps illegal activities," said Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, who sponsored the legislation. The lawmaker said Americans "are at the mercy" of OPEC for how much they pay for gasoline, which this week hit a record average of $3.79 a gallon. The White House opposes the bill, saying that targeting OPEC investment in the United States as a source for damage awards "would likely spur retaliatory action against American interests in those countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S. refiners." Bush Correct Again Bush was correct in threatening to veto housing legislation, and this veto is clear cut as well. Ironically, after having nothing good to say about President Bush for nearly 8 years, I am now defending him in back to back issues. Congressional Arrogance The arrogance of Congress is amazing. Congress actually thinks it can pass legislation the rest of the world must follow. Imagine the outrage if China passed laws and told the US what to do! China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Iran, and five dozen other countries should all issue a joint statement. It should read as follows: If you are wondering why oil prices are high you should look into a mirror. You are blowing $trillions in Iraq, wasting countless billions on housing bailout plans, you have troops stationed all over the world, wasting energy at great expense. The taxes you are collecting do not meet your expenses, on anything. Look at your latest farm bill, your tariffs on ethanol and your policies on grains, all of which are driving up prices. It's no wonder the the US dollar is falling. Your president and treasury pay lip service to a "strong dollar policy" but the actions of Congress and your administration are doing everything they can to destroy the dollar. Instead of trying to write laws for the rest of the world, please take care of your own business. Instead, everyone tap dances around the issue, attempting to be as diplomatic as possible. Clearly diplomacy is not working. And it's no wonder that diplomacy is failing given that Congress is practically brain dead. A nice well deserved "Go To Hell" message just might wake Congress up. I doubt it actually, but it sure can't hurt. Mish Oil Plan Eliminate ethanol subsidies (Brazil produces ethanol at 1/3 our cost but we will not allow ethanol imports) Eliminate crop subsidies Eliminate all tariffs and all subsidies Adopt a balance budget (This will strengthen the US dollar, dramatically) Get out of Iraq, Europe, Japan, and damn near everywhere else (This will ease geopolitical tensions and have Iraq pumping oil within 4-5 years or less) End US imperialism (This is very dollar supportive) Legalize hemp for fiber production and biofuels (This will reduce the need for petroleum based fibers, and hemp will be far better at producing biofuels than corn) Let the free market find a solution (If Congress would get the hell out of the way, the free market will find a practical solution) Instead Congress wants to sue OPEC. In a way, suing OPEC is innocuous because it is a pointless waste of time and going nowhere. I talked about this idea recently in Congress Whistled Offsides. However, this is very frustrating to me because the answers are so easy. I am all in favor of being able to tell OPEC where to go. But the plan has to start with free market principles, not US imperialism or Congress attempting to dictate laws for the rest of the world. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

I hope the moderators will edit the title of this thread as some of the titles from Toyota.vs.GM have been edited.

But they may make a higher profit.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson214.html The Oil-Addiction Fallacy by William L. Anderson Watch any talking head, and when the subject comes to energy, one can expect to hear the mantra, Americans are “addicted” to oil, and especially “foreign oil.” This is repeated as though the repetition is proof that the premise is true. Thus, American taxpayers are currently being forced to contribute billions of dollars – and will be dunned many billions more in the future – for a number of measures that supposedly will “secure” the United States’s energy use and supplies in the coming years. What’s more, the debate about whether or not these energy programs are even necessary is considered passé. The major question on energy today, unfortunately, is this: How much will government central planning replace relatively free markets in determining America’s energy future? If I may be bold with words, it seems to me that what we are witnessing is that the future production and supply of fuel in the United States is to be left not to a free market, but to something akin to Mussolini’s corporate state, which gave us the Italian version of “fascism.” While people today have been taught to think of fascism as related to goose-stepping men in military uniforms and dictators with moustaches, it actually represents a form of social organization in which government forces policies upon the business sector in which the state directs production in exchange for guaranteed monopolized markets. Although I realize that “fascism” is one of those “shock” words that is easily misinterpreted or exaggerated, there is no better term to describe what I see as the energy future of the United States. To explain why I believe this interpretation so strongly, I have prepared a number of questions and answers regarding the production and use of fuel in the United States as a tool by which to point out why the current direction being pushed both by the Bush administration and by Congress not only is wrong, economically speaking, but is just plain destructive. Oil addiction Q: Is the United States “addicted” to oil, and especially foreign oil? A: The term “addicted” obviously is pejorative. Addiction refers to the habitual use of something for which one does not receive a benefit, or at least a long-term benefit. For example, we think of addictions as pertaining to the use of drugs such as cocaine or heroin that might give the user a temporary “high” feeling but that in the long term are injurious to his health. In reference to the use of oil, the picture that the “anti-addiction” advocates want to put forth is that of people who enjoy short-term gains from using gasoline and other petroleum-based products, but whose use in the long run makes them dependent on exports from hostile or unstable countries, such as those in the Middle East. John Fund has recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, that Bush has bought into the term in a big way: Members of Congress who have recently visited with Mr. Bush in the Oval Office have found him both fixated and fascinated by alternative fuels. “He’s all into switchgrass,” Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat, told the San Francisco Chronicle. She said Mr. Bush was “very engaged and wants to move forward” on bold plans to cure America’s “addiction to oil.” But there is a problem in using the term “addiction” to refer to oil. The term “addiction” denotes a moral choice, as though it were immoral to use oil, but moral to use a fuel developed from a different source. While I will deal with the use of particular fuels that Bush apparently believes to be the “moral” ones, I will first deal with the issue of whether or not it is immoral to use petroleum. Petroleum is petroleum, and whether it comes from under the ground within the borders of the United States or from elsewhere, it contains the same molecular structure and the same physical properties. There is no intrinsically moral difference between oil extracted from within the United States and oil extracted from another country. The only question that remains is about its use. People use petroleum as the basis for fuel for their automobiles, heating their houses, powering vehicles used for work, and many other things. The assumption from the “oil is addictive” crowd is that these things are somehow immoral if they are done with the help of oil but moral if done by aid of another fuel. Now, it is clear that many of the things on which we depend have an oil component, but the development of fossil fuels has also meant that the world as we know it now can sustain more human life, and for a longer time. (In the pre-capitalist, pre–fossil-fuel age, life expectancy was about 30 years. Environmentalists try to tell us those were the Golden Years.) In other words, fossil fuels – and especially oil – have been valuable products for civilization as we know it. It is true that Americans (as well as nearly everyone else in the world) depend heavily on petroleum-based fuel. Yet people also depend on oxygen and we hear no one saying that we are “addicted to oxygen” or “addicted to water” or “addicted to food.” Petroleum-based fossil fuels have enabled people to enjoy standards of living that were unthinkable in the past. The difference between depending on something and being “addicted” to it is vast. Policies that Congress pushes toward oil and oil companies further advance the “oil is immoral” mantra. First, Congress has severely restricted the drilling for oil and currently is trying to permanently stop new drilling in Alaska. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (or ANWR) has vast reserves under its soil, and the area proposed for drilling is not a pristine habitat for wildlife but rather an arctic desert. (The pictures of wildlife that often accompany the news stories on the subject are taken in areas where drilling would never occur, something that the commentators do not mention.) Second, the new Democratic Congress is attempting to levy stiff taxes on domestic oil (and natural gas), all in the name of trying to force down energy prices. (Earth to Congress; slapping punitive taxes on anything ultimately raises prices for those goods and services.) The obvious purpose is to discourage domestic production of petroleum, making oil-based fuels more expensive, which is ironic, since one reason that voters turned out the Republicans was that they blamed them for high gasoline prices. Here is the supreme irony: First we are told that we should not be importing oil from Middle Eastern countries or places such as Venezuela, but then we find that the government is also trying to squash domestic production. Thus, it is not hard to conclude that the “buying oil from unstable countries” line is a red herring. The reasons for such policies are obvious: Congress wants to end the era of fossil fuels altogether, or at least force consumers to use other fuels that Congress has deemed morally suitable for this country. That’s why Congress continues to push the “addiction” lie, as well as the fossil-fuels-create-global-warming viewpoint. However, we hear about other “choices” for “alternative fuels,” and especially ethanol, which I examine next. Alternative fuels Q: Don’t ethanol and other alternative and “renewable” fuels show more promise? A: During the first government-created “energy crisis” of the 1970s, the U.S. government sank billions of taxpayer dollars into the “synfuels” industry. The Carter administration, which pushed the program, insisted that the United States could become “energy independent” by making fuel from coal, oil shale, tar sands, and, of course, corn. At the time, the price for a barrel of conventional petroleum was substantially below the price for an equivalent “synthetic” fuel, and that differential increased during the 1980s and 1990s. The Reagan administration let the “synfuels” program die quietly, and while there was a short resurgence in the early days of the Gulf War toward “energy independence,” the benefits of relatively inexpensive petroleum were obvious. The problems of ethanol are much greater than advocates wish to admit. First, and most important, it literally takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel to make a gallon of ethanol from corn. While political rhetoric can be used to rewrite the tax and spending laws that permit the government subsidy needed to make ethanol, it cannot rewrite the laws of science. Corn-based ethanol, which has driven corn prices to very high levels, is a naked subsidy to a relatively small group of persons who grow corn for a living. Second, ethanol has serious transportation problems, as it cannot be moved by pipeline, which is by far the least expensive and most economical way to transport fuels for long distances. Instead, it must be transported by truck and rail, and that means that new tank cars must be constructed, and they have to be hauled by existing carriers, which are already limited by other factors, such as the availability of roads, rails, and train schedules. In other words, the amount of ethanol that would be needed to be a viable replacement for fossil-based fuels simply cannot be transported the way gasoline is transported because the alternative transportation capacity does not exist, and would not ever be likely to be on line. (Politicians and other alternative-energy advocates forget that transportation is part of the economic process, too. They cannot simply wish alternatives into being without looking at the costs involved.) John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes, As for corn-based ethanol, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute calls the current mania to subsidize it “the closest thing to a state religion America has.” Corn farmers have done a good job of disguising the fact that it still takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel – 29 percent more is the best estimate – to make a gallon of ethanol. In addition, various mandates requiring the use of ethanol significantly increased gasoline prices last summer and led to spot shortages because ethanol can’t be carried through pipelines and requires special blending plants. James Glassman, an economist with J.P. Morgan Chase, notes that expensive ethanol was a big factor in the sticker-shock consumers encountered at the pump this summer. “We’d probably have retail gasoline prices between $2.30 and $2.40 a gallon if not for ethanol,” he told the Wall Street Journal last June, when pump prices were topping $3 a gallon. Third, the corn-based alcohol fuel itself is not as desirable as gasoline or diesel fuel in terms of performance. (Yes, Indy cars run on alcohol, but the owners and drivers of those cars do not worry about things such as gas mileage.) Ethanol gets fewer miles per gallon than do gasoline and diesel fuel, and when one adds the fact that the creation of a gallon of corn-based ethanol requires more than a gallon of petroleum-based fuels to be burned, we have the perverse result in which the more ethanol we create and use, the more we use oil. And this is done in the name of “conservation”? It is true that ethanol can be made from plants such as switchgrass and other “weeds,” but the fundamental issues do not change. Furthermore, because the current ethanol program really is a subsidy to corn farmers, the idea that corn farmers and their political allies would permit other widespread ethanol programs just does not square with political reality. Energy independence Q: Won’t “energy independence” make us more secure? A: There is something reassuring about the concept of “energy independence,” but the term is much more dishonest than one might think. First, and most important, the United States is part of a world economy, and it is not the case that because one product is produced within the borders of this country the United States is “independent” of what happens elsewhere in the world. Indeed, many people who call for “energy independence” have no problem in calling for U.S. troops to be sent around the world for military operations because they insist that global issues are our issues, too. (My comments are not an endorsement of such policies, but rather an attempt to point out that people who call for energy independence need to be consistent in their thinking.) Second, one must remember that trade itself is by nature a peaceful activity, spurred on by mutual benefits to all parties involved. It is in Americans’ interest to trade with all nations, including those in the Middle East. Before the Gulf War of 1991, the United States was trading peacefully with Iraq and other nations of the region. The turmoil in Iraq-U.S. relations was more the result of U.S. policies than anything hatched by the late Saddam Hussein, as cruel and dictatorial a person as he was. Furthermore, even if this country could theoretically produce all necessary fuel domestically, the cost to taxpayers and consumers would be extremely high and would greatly lower Americans’ standard of living and increase the rate of poverty here. Energy “independence” is a foolish term that has no bearing in reality. Such a regime of “independence” would require government to expand its powers of taxation and regulation far beyond where those powers operate today, and Americans would be made substantially poorer for the effort. There is another way. The United States could return to being a peaceful trading partner with countries of the world, no matter what the ideology of their governments. In the long run, there would be no call for “energy independence,” because trade obviously would be the better and wiser route to take.

I agree with this - it's going to take a lot of things - including more domestic oil production and a lot more nuclear energy, as well as some ethanol, better batteries, cars that get over 40 mpg, more mass transit, wind and solar power, etc. - to meet our future energy needs.

Apparently, not everyone hates Saturn the way some here do (even though I agree GM never should have started it). http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...1014/BUSINESS01 Saturn has sharp cars, low profile BY MARK PHELAN FREE PRESS COLUMNIST To see the future of the Saturn Aura midsize sedan, you only need to look at the chiseled new Opel Insignia. To see the future of the Saturn brand, which GM is remaking with a line of excellent, stylish and affordable cars and crossover SUVs, takes more work. The stylish and expensive-looking Insignia is a dead ringer for the replacement for Saturn's acclaimed Aura, thanks to GM's strategy of combining engineering and design for Opel and Saturn. The new Aura should go on sale next year as a 2010 model. The Opel Insignia is to go on sale in Europe later this year. The Insignia's swoopy shape could pass for a BMW. Its range of equipment includes a new platform, an all-wheel drive system tuned for performance and handling. The Insignia looks like a promising car that will be a strong addition to what's already one of the industry's most attractive showrooms. But can Saturn get enough buyers who want a stylish midsize sedan with European character and performance to enter those showrooms? Saturn's sales are down 15.4% through the first four months of this year, despite the fact that the brand's current model lineup is the strongest and most appealing in its history. The decrease can be attributed to dropping its aged compact Ion car this year. The Ion was Saturn's best seller, but it made little if any money for General Motors. Saturn's new models are selling at a much better price and drawing new, upscale buyers to the brand, but that's cold comfort. "People aren't aware of the brand," said Rebecca Lindland, analyst with Global Insight of Lexington, Mass. "It's got great vehicles, but the market is so crowded. It's hard to get people to come into the dealerships." Lindland cites the Saturn Vue compact crossover as a prime example: "It's head and shoulders better than the old model, but it's not outselling it. "The problem has to be marketing," she said. "Marketing is the voice of the product; it's vital to get people into the showroom." Saturn needs an effective marketing strategy more than ever. Its old models sold nearly exclusively on the basis of low cost and monthly payments. Vehicles like the current Vue, Aura, Outlook midsize crossover and Astra compact are vastly superior to the old Saturn lineup, but they also tend to cost more than what the brand's loyalists are used to paying. At the same time, shoppers looking for well-equipped contemporary vehicles with European flair and room to carry a family never had a reason to visit Saturn before. "Saturn as a brand has zero consideration among midsize car customers," said Jim Hall, managing director of 2953 Analytics, a Birmingham consulting and forecasting company. "Today, they are selling really fine machines, but not enough people know it." Despite that, Saturn has data to show its cars and trucks have begun to attract the new buyers it needs. "There's a real upward trend in the demographics" of its buyers, said Matt Armstrong, Saturn car marketing manager. Saturn's average transaction price rose a whopping 43% from 2005 to 2007, he said. The transaction price is what people really pay for a vehicle, including incentives and other deals. It's a better gauge of a brand's health than sticker price, because it reflects how desirable people find it. The 2007 transaction price was $24,400 up from $17,100 in 2005, Armstrong said. That reflects a brand that's moving from the bargain basement to some sort of status symbol. Other promising signs include buyers with much higher average household incomes -- $81,000 now vs. $64,000 in 2005 -- and a significant rise in the number of buyers with college degrees. "Just a year ago, the top three reasons peopled picked a Saturn were value, fuel economy and the price or monthly payment," Armstrong said. "Now they are exterior styling, value and fuel economy. "That shows that people appreciate our new products. They're coming in because of the products, not because of the payment." In addition to stylish new vehicles, Saturn is promoting its environmental image, stressing high fuel economy ratings for vehicles like the Aura, Astra and Outlook. It is also GM's point brand for gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles. Saturn should make a big splash late this year when the Vue becomes the first small vehicle available with GM's sophisticated and effective two-mode hybrid system. "We're remaking people's expectations of the brand," Armstrong said. "It's an ongoing process, but we're on a great trajectory." Moving Saturn from a cheap-and-cheerful brand to one that delivers vehicles as good as its legendary customer service is a huge challenge. An early yardstick for success is whether the Vue outsells its predecessor this year. A more ambitious goal is significantly boosting Outlook sales. Saturn's midsize crossover is selling at less than 30% the level of its cousin, the GMC Acadia. The only reasons for that are that people are used to going to GMC for high-quality family vehicles and GMC has more dealerships than Saturn. The Outlook is as good as the Acadia, and its base price is $1,500 lower. "The success of the Outlook and next-generation Aura will tell the tale" for Saturn, Hall said. The Insignia bodes well for the Aura's future, Lindland said. "It's a gorgeous car. Stunning," she said. "It has beautiful proportions. "Maybe it can do for Saturn what the Malibu is doing for Chevrolet," she said, by posting major sales growth and winning customers from brands like Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Contact MARK PHELAN at 313-222-6731 or [email protected]

Too bad the 2008 G8 wasn't the 2004 Grand Prix - it would have been a smash hit, gas was relatively cheap then, and it would have beaten the Chrysler LX models to market. Now we need affordable, comfortable 40 to 50 mpg cars.

Energy Plan Political Pandering Whenever Congress puts together a bill attempting to find a solution to some sort of real or imagined problem, my immediate thought is that the bill do one of four things: It will worsen the problem at hand It will do nothing to solve the problem but instead create a new problem somewhere else It will worsen the original problem and create new problems In the very best case it will do nothing at all Consider the ethanol plan. Growing corn to produce ethanol was supposed to help make us energy independent. What happened was that subsidies to grow corn (an energy wasteful process without the subsidies), did not cause gasoline prices to drop, instead it diverted food products to inefficient energy processes. This raised the price of grain which feeds livestock and corn syrup (used in practically everything as a sweetener). Inquiring minds may wish to consider The Case for Ending Ethanol Subsidies. At a time of soaring food prices and concern over carbon emissions, George Bush needs to rethink his biofuel policy. Just in time for today’s Earth Day festivities, President Bush has announced a new initiative to combat global warming. He set a goal of stopping the growth in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2025 and reducing emissions thereafter. But rather than plan for 2025—which is another two or three presidencies away—Bush should immediately fix his ethanol policy, which is increasing GHG emissions and raising food prices not only in the United States but all over the world. American companies are still trying to digest the ethanol mandates passed by Congress last December. Congress mandated the production of 9 billion gallons of ethanol or other renewable fuels this year; that number will gradually increase until it reaches 36 billion gallons in 2022. In addition, ethanol producers receive a tax break of 51 cents a gallon, and corn growers receive huge subsidies that may increase in the next farm bill. Using ethanol for energy was supposed to be a win-win situation: the United States has so much corn, we were told, that it could use some to make gasoline, thereby reducing its GHG emissions and also reducing its dependence on foreign oil. But in the real world, unintended consequences are all too frequent. Take the linkage between ethanol and GHG emissions. Scientists now believe that the production of ethanol actually creates more harmful emissions than it prevents. Indeed, Princeton University professor Timothy Searchinger and other researchers have concluded that “corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.” In addition, ethanol production is contributing to increases in the price of food, both in the United States and abroad. Not only is corn being made into ethanol, but other crops are being abandoned in favor of corn. Rather than set a new goal for stabilizing GHG emissions, Congress and President Bush could do one simple thing that would truly honor of Earth Day: eliminate ethanol subsidies and get rid of the mandates. By the way, that is what all subsidies do by nature. Subsidies never work. Consumer-Last Energy Plan Instead of backing away from an ethanol plan gone haywire, Congress is looking at compounding the problem with yet another ridiculous energy bill. Please consider Senate Democrats unveil new energy tax plan. Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday unveiled a new energy package that would revoke $17 billion in tax breaks extended to big oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp and slap a 25 percent windfall profits tax on firms that don't invest in new energy sources. The Consumer-First Energy Act -- assembled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other key Democrats -- would also stop the Energy Department from filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until crude oil prices average $75 a barrel or less for 90 days. The Democrats' energy bill seeks to lay the blame for record-high gasoline prices over $3.60 a gallon on the Bush administration, big oil companies like Exxon and the OPEC oil cartel. It also seeks to rein in speculation in oil markets, which Senate Democrats see as a prime mover behind crude oil prices which hit a record high of $123.80 a barrel on Wednesday. The bill would prevent companies that trade U.S. oil futures from routing transactions through off-shore markets to evade position limits and requires the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to boost margin requirements for all oil futures transactions. However, CFTC Chairman Walter Lukken told a Senate subcommittee on Wednesday that speculators were not behind the jump in oil prices and he warned that higher margins would push energy trading off government-regulated exchanges. "I think there would be a migration off exchanges," said Lukken, adding that higher margins act like "a tax on traders." Congressional Lack Of Thinking Eliminating tax breaks for oil companies is reasonable enough given that all tax breaks and subsidies across the board should be eliminated. However, the rest of the bill is nonsense. Once again no one takes the problem back to the original source. One problem is peak oil, and I propose the free market would find a solution, if left alone. Instead we have been sidetracked from finding a real solution by an inane ethanol program, that divert resources from finding that solution. Is Speculation A Problem? William Engdahl writing for Financial Sense says Perhaps 60% of Today's Oil Price is Pure Speculation. I am not going to debate the merits or demerits of the article. However, if speculation is a problem, then perhaps one might ask why speculation is a problem. But Congress is absolutely incapable of this kind of thinking. If speculation is a problem (and it's easy to believe that is the case), then it is caused by monetary policies worldwide that are encouraging speculation. After all, speculation fueled an enormous housing bubble, not just in the US, but worldwide. So if one wants to stop such speculation, the all one has to do is address the root cause of the problem: global monetary policies by the Fed in particular, central banks in general, Congress, and governmental bodies elsewhere. But No! Check out the actual solutions countries are coming up with. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is discussing the situation in Global free market for food and energy faces biggest threat in decades. India shocked the markets yesterday by suspending trading in futures contracts for a range of farm products in a bid to clamp down on alleged speculators and curb inflation, now running at 7.6pc. The country's Forward Markets Commission said contracts for soybean oil, chana (chickpeas), potatoes, and rubber had been banned for four months, even though a report by the Indian parliament last month concluded that soaring food costs had almost nothing to do with the futures contracts. Traders in Mumbai slammed the ban as an act of brazen political populism. Kazakhstan has prohibited wheat exports. Russia has slapped a 40pc export duty on shipments, and Pakistan a 35pc duty. China, Cambodia, Malaysia, Philipines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam have all imposed export controls or forms of rationing to ease the crisis. Argentina has banned beef exports and placed an export duty on soybeans. Jim Newsome, the head of the New York Mercantile Exchange, said trading curbs on hedge funds woold achieve nothing. "All you're going to do is potentially cripple the US exchanges and move that flow of trading to non-US regulated markets," he told the Wall Street Journal. Brazen Political Populism Caroline Baum knocks another one out of the park with Election Year + $124 Crude Oil = Silly Solutions. The confluence of record oil prices and a presidential election year is proving to be an irresistible combination for Congress and the candidates, all of whom happen to be members of that esteemed body. Two of the three U.S. presidential contenders are promoting the idea of a federal gas-tax holiday this summer. Two of the three (a different duo) want to enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies, a bad idea whose time has apparently come (again). One of the three wants both. That would be Hillary Clinton, Democratic senator from New York. Populist millionaire Clinton (millionaires make the best populists) has lashed out at the oil companies, accusing them of market manipulation and collusion. She's railed against speculators, those evil traders who buy when everyone else is selling and sell when the crowd is buying. She labeled the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries a monopoly and threatened to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization. (Her Democratic opponent, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, inconveniently pointed out that Clinton hasn't signed on as a sponsor to a bill that would make oil- producing and exporting cartels illegal.) Tax Gas Holiday Writing about the proposed gasoline tax holiday which Clinton favors but Obama does not, Baum goes on to say: "If the stated goal of government policy is energy conservation, energy independence and the development of alternative sources of energy, lowering the price of gasoline -- waiving the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal excise tax for even three months -- is counterproductive. The demand curve is downward sloping, which is a fancy way of saying that at a lower price consumers demand more." That ought to be obvious, especially to Hillary. So either she is not as bright as people think she is, or she is more guilty of political pandering than her opponents. Take your pick. I am sticking with what I said in Hillary's Scorched Earth Policy. Instead of addressing the real problem, political pandering has now gone global, with Hillary Clinton as the top cheerleader. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

I wouldn't be surprised if the only Alphas will be the next generation Camaro and the Cadillac. Would ocnblu be happy with a base level Camaro with a sub 2.0L 4 cylinder and a 6 speed manual instead of a similar Pontiac? There would probably be a V8 Camaro but it would be as exclusive to the Camaro as the M3 is to the 3 series. I wouldn't be surprised if Pontiac ends up with just the Vibe and the G6/Epsilon II Malibu rebadge and maybe the Solstice. I wouldn't be surprised if Buick ends up with just the Epsilon II LaCrosse, maybe a new Delta II sedan, and the Enclave.

Does this mean that the Epsilon II LaCrosse/Invicta may be Buick's most expensive sedan in several years?

It seems to me the decline is all in the trucks. The days of trucks and full sized SUV's as personal use vehicles is coming to an end, and the adjustment for GM may be painful.

I hope this doesn't mean Buick will have a lineup of only 2 cars - the Enclave and Lacrosse/Invicta.

Not going to happen. I highly recommend reading Robert Bryce's Gusher of Lies.

Thegriffon has proven over the past 7 years or so that he deserves more respect than that.

How high will oil prices have to get before the American public supports drilling in ANWR?

The car is attractive enough, but I will be more interested in the interior and cargo room specifications. I believe these are areas where GM needs to do better.

Better yet, not spend the money at all and have a lower federal debt.

Iraq is the biggest blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy.