ellives

Figures lie and liars figure. At least they explain the basis for their statements by mentioning capitalization. Of course 99% of consumers don't understand what they means so they'll just take the statement as fact. Lemmings. Market cap is a fleeting number than can change on a dime. Literally.

OK: "You're crazy" Employees should be procured for market value. The argument is GM's UAW workers are being compensated at substantially more than market value which is one of the reasons GM is not competitive. There has been not argument made for any other employee category in the Company I'm aware of. Probably because the non-unionized employees are considered "at will" employees and can be replaced fairly easily, particularly in management positions if these are the ones you were referring to as "EVERYONE."

There *does* seem to be a theme here with Toyota whereby they seem to very often to play the game focused on purely how things will be measured. Obviously it's a smart tactic but it's not necessarily a way to make the best car.

Definitely a moron. How convenient he has the ability to video himself from the viewpoint of the dash looking back at him. If I was GM I'd take the car back and tell him to go away. There are just some idiot people no one wants as a customer.

Is there a point here? The flow of the logic of the posting is all over the place and seems to mix the challenges of the domestic auto industry vs. imports with problems with US immigration.

Actually his first phrase was incomplete. It goes more like "opinions are like assholes.... everyone has one and they all stink..." Thus the detailed analysis above really doesn't make any sense when applied against the correct expression.

Don't conclude too much from Carol Shea-Porter's win. She clearly needs to be a little more humble in her interviews about the election. The reason she was elected was more a referendum on Iraq than it is about her campaign strategy. New Hampshire is a Republican state. This said, there has been a steady migration of Massachusetts-originated people (who tend to be liberal Democrats like John Kerry) over the border so the southern part of NH has been gradually turning blue but overall it's a red state. Shea-Porter was the beneficiary of the "staight party ballot" where the voter can simply check one box and the whole ballot simply votes for either the Republican or Demcratic candidate. No thought is required on a office-by-office basis. I made the point to ask people about how they voted and a lot, including a lot of Republicans like me, voted the straight party option in favor of the Democrats. This is why she was elected and not because of any strategy her campaign used or a wholesale change in public political leanings. This state *is* a grass roots-type environment. We expect the candidates to visit us and pariticipate in town hall meetings so we have a chance to see their thought process at work. We are also a spread out state and require the use of automobiles so we're keenly interested in the price of gas and also many of us use oil to heat our homes during the winter. We also don't like government telling us how to live our lives. Remember, New Hampshire has no sales or income tax. The only significant tax we have is real estate tax. This is one of the reasons I suspect Shea-Porter will be a one-term-congresswoman as the Democrats are always looking for ways to increase taxes. Unfortunately there was no other way to get Bush's attention and get his cowboy antics under control. The way I figure it, the Dems have 2 years to make some changes otherwise the control of congress will flip back to the Republicans. I'm not sure that's enough time but it certainly will be enough to establish whether the remaining incumbent congresspersons have gotten the message, otherwise they'll be also be out in '08 which I personally hope will happen anyway. Clearly the next 2 years will be interesting and significant in many, many ways. The presidential election and the UAW contract re-negotiation come to mind. On a side note is anybody on this forum attending the Detroit auto show in a couple of weeks? I've never been as the Boston show has been enough but there are so many product releases scheduled for the Detroit show this year it sounds like it would be worth the trip.

"Term limits" are the answer. The problem is the congress will NEVER pass it unless there is a HUGE groundswell from the people (their constituents) demanding they do it. Alas the people are lemmings and would never do this and the congress knows it. Most people don't even know who their congressmen are so how could we expect them to even get organized about something like this? How's that for cynicism?

The incumbent congress is mostly a bunch of whores out for themselves. When congressional term limits are passed (if ever) there *may* be a chance of real work getting done. As it is now, the country is being sucked down the tubes by special interests and pure apathy.

No way. Did you come to this conclusion from my prior posts? I would never suggest the government get involved unless there is illegal activity going on. To me the unions have the wheel. They either get Toyota and Honda unionized in '07 or they fail in '07 during the contract negotiations with GM and Ford. It's in their hands and if they have a compelling story to tell it shouldn't be tough to convince the Toyota and Honda labor to jump on board. If not, I'd really wonder why they think the GM and Ford workers should continue. I just don't think they have a compelling story to share with anybody.

Yes, for '07 but it's not the spectacular change the last body style brought. The current redesign is more evolutionary style-wise and more focus was put on the internal technology improvments.

Nissan did a good job with the Altima but it's aging and ready for a replacement. They also suffer from quality issues from what I hear although apparently not enough to make buyers switch brands. I have no idea what's happening with the Sentra. It's never been an inspiring car, and certainly nothing like what the Altima was when it came out. I shudder when you use the Cobalt and the Malibu in the same sentence. To me they are worlds apart, specifically in the styling area. I see the Cobalt as a perfectly viable product in it's market category whereas I see the current Malibu as a complete failure aesthetically. It's simply ugly and the kind of car no one wants to be seen in. It seems most of us know GM needs to work the car side of their business. I don't think they needed to plunk down a pile of money to entice Ghosn to come over with the Renault team nor would they help in any tangible way. At least none that I've seen written down. I think from a design perspective, GM got the message and they're responding. To me the biggest challenge they have is whether they can address your last sentence when you mention "perceived quality." You simply can't buy perception as it has to be earned and Toyota is masterful at managing perception. Even when they aren't strong in a particularly area, they always manage the perception to make them appear strong.

Further to this I question the value of the Toyota partnership from years back with the Geo product. Personally I think this helped Toyota more than it did GM. Toyota ended up with the product volume and GM ended up killing the Geo brand. This goes to everything that is outsourced these days. It might be a short term solution to profitability but you'd better keep tight reigns on your engineering and product development functions otherwise you'll find yourself working for the outsourcers in pretty short order.

Again, those who can, do. Those who can't, write about it. I love how he writes about Ghosn saving Nissan. While he did save them from bankrupcy, Nissan still has plenty of their own challenges and serious lack of inspiring new product. I find it seriously doubtful the Renault thing would have been anything more than a distraction. I'd love to see Walberg explain why and how he thinks Ghosn would save GM.

Strange reading the just prior post made me think of a friend I had in high school that *was* an Olds family. He had a '69 Cutlass when I met him that I think he wrecked and then moved on to a '72 that he shared with his sister. When they bought the '78 you could tell things were changing. It was a box and nobody liked it, whereas the older ones had great lines and the Olds 350. I don't think GM ever recovered from the mixing of the engines amongst the brands.

Greg Brady hair? Some memories are best left forgotten... :AH-HA_wink:

I actually like the rear end of it. I really don't care for the round tail light effect. I particularly hated it in the prior generation Impala. I remember when I saw the first one of those on the road and wondered to myself what the heck Chevy was doing with it. I know there is a desire to harken back to the design of the '60s generation Chevies with the "3 round tail lights per side" design but I just don't think it works in today's designs. I think they realized this. Go Chevy.

Wow.

Maybe MT's intentional mistake? Maybe more anti-GM spin on the part of the media? Hmmmm.... Either way it makes me want to go out and test drive a Cobalt myself.

A level playing field would be one where labor costs are similar. This means Toyota gets unionized or the UAW completely fails.

I'd love to see gridlock in congress for 2 years. If it happens, it will be a good excuse to vote the rest of those damn useless, do nothing, self-serving foot draggers out. I can't wait.

Buildings age either physically or esthetically. I'm sure it wasn't considered ugly when it was built.

The only bone of contention I'd have with this statement is on the pricing. We all know Toyota dealers don't yield much discount off sticker whereas Chevy dealers give away the farm so the real effect is the Cobalt is actually a fair amount cheaper than the Corolla. I suppose we could argue about the residual value after 4 years but this difference is probably somewhat reflective of the difference in original purchase cost I suspect.

Funny I was thinking exactly the same thing about the "GM thinking" when I read his post. While no can reasonably argue with Lutz on his point, it's immaterial and goes to the heart of GM's problems. As long as they measure themselves against their own products and/or bring products to the market that are just "good enough" the future will not be bright.

The link doesn't seem to work....