By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Well that can certainly be debated, but speculative bubbles are nothing new, they go all the way back to the Dutch tulip bubble/bust in the 1600's.
A recent client usually made about $100K yearly, is currently on food stamps and is making about $1200 monthly...
Both were hit hard when construction hit the wall, but were riding high when construction could do no wrong...
But they were probably selling homes to folks who had no-doc loans and could not truly afford their homes...
So, which evil is worse???...selling homes and making a profit on people who have no chance of paying for the house, or the builders themselves who built on speculation and now no one is buying anything???
Both situations are part of the cycle...any opinions from you folks as to which bad situation is morally worse???
Well obviously, if everyone would have bought GM vehicles and nothing made from China, this poor fellow would have never lost his home and business.
Both situations are part of the cycle...any opinions from you folks as to which bad situation is morally worse???
It's just unfortunate fallout from a boom and bust. Same type of thing happened after the tech boom, only this is worse because housing is hitting everyone to a varying degree.
War is hell, and nobody's perfect, but at least the U.S. did not start WWII.
An interesting thing to listen to, IMO anyway, is Theodore Van Kirk who if you google his name, spoke recently at length about his experience on the Enola Gay. He is still extremely sharp and listening to him made me realize even more that we can't apply today's logic to rewrite the history of what was going on then.
Modern logic doesn't apply to the situation of 65 years ago. Second guessing what happened only does so much and sometimes can maginalize the sacrifice of the times - as it already happened and can't be changed. That war was started 20 years before Poland was invaded. It's done, and lessons can be learned by both sides, especially about who to choose as allies.
So, one can't touch a German or Japanese car...USA has its own issues...French or Russians no way, the British even worse, the Swedes aided the [non-permissible content removed] until the going got tough - so none of those cars...certainly nothing from China...maybe a car from India is the answer
I guess I should start raising horses;)
That's a really good point.
Far too often people attempt to view historical acts in todays environment, instead of the environment when the event actually happened.
And, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan are excellent examples of events that many attempt to analyze using today's viewpoints on nuclear weaponry, instead of 1945, when 1000's upon 1000's were expected to die in the invasion of the Japanese islands.
Personally, its difficult to see how, if one used today's viewpoints, we could fight WWII again. We had more men killed in a single battle than the entire Iraq "action".
What would the the public response today to something like that?
Both situations are part of the cycle...any opinions from you folks as to which bad situation is morally worse???
Definitely a gray area. There's certainly a lot of blame to be passed around.
One thing both groups shared.... A lack of vision, viewing the future as 30 days from now instead of 30 years from now.
Can GM's downsized focus change that? Even if it does, one year does not a top rated company make.
Like it or not.
Regards,
OW
>And, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan are excellent examples of events that many attempt to analyze using today's viewpoints on nuclear weaponry, instead of 1945, when 1000's upon 1000's were expected to die in the invasion of the Japanese islands.
Exactly right.
Too many are allowed to try to revise the history to distort the events to support their view, today, of what the revisionists think should be the value system for battles now.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Not to nit-pick, but all that really says is that consumers prefer it the most. It would definitely be the best seller, but may/maybe not the best in quality.
Ford trucks have a long history of really strong sales, so I would personally be a bit reluctant to say that its the best. Of course, a lot of that depends upon how one defines "best".
You don't have to do a lot of work to find examples of products that were top-sellers, yet nowhere near the top as it related to quality.
To base a contemporary car buying decision on past conflicts retains the negative effects those leaders lived by.
To each his own. I'm easier on the Germans because it's easier to get around the bend!
Regards,
OW
From...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Dictator
Studebaker Dictator 4-Door Sedan 1937
1937 Studebaker Dictator coupe in the collection of the Studebaker National Museum.The Studebaker Dictator was an automobile produced by the Studebaker Corporation of South Bend, Indiana (USA) from 1927-1937. Model year 1928 was the first full year of Dictator production.
In the mid-1920s, Studebaker began renaming its vehicles. The model previously known as the Studebaker Standard Six became the Dictator during the 1927 model year; internally these models were designated model GE. The name was chosen to imply that Studebaker's model "dictated the standard" that other automobile makes would follow.
Dictators were the low-end price leader of the Studebaker marque, followed (in ascending order) by the Studebaker Commander and Studebaker President series. In 1929, Studebaker began offering an 8-cylinder engine for the Dictator series. Dictators were available in a full range of body-styles.
At the end of the 1935 model year, Studebaker suspended production of the Commander, marketing only its Dictator and President series in 1936.
Consequences of the Dictator name
In retrospect, the choice of the model name might seem unfortunate. Benjamin L. Alpers begins his history of American perceptions of dictators, Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture: Envisioning the Totalitarian Enemy, 1920s-1950s, with the introduction of the Studebaker Dictator: "There were, of course, some political problems connected with the name 'Dictator'. A number of the European monarchies to which Studebaker exported the car were wary of the moniker. Diplomatically, Studebaker marketed its Standard Six as the 'Director' in these countries. In the United States, apparently, the name appears initially to have caused no problems."
Studebaker had chosen the Dictator name at a moment when the only dictator that would have immediately come to an American mind was Benito Mussolini, who was widely admired in the US for the image of audacious boldness and strength that successfully sold cars, in spite of well-publicized fascist violence (Alpers 2003). However the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany tainted the word dictator, and Studebaker abruptly and without fanfare (or surviving internal correspondence) discontinued the Dictator at the end of the 1936 model year, and replaced it in the 1937 model year and beyond with the Studebaker Commander moniker.
Timing is everything!
OK, The F-Series is the best seller on preference....45% more than Silverado at the moment.
Must be that C-11 thing or something else besides a quality decision in that preference.
Regards,
OW
CR picked the Avalanche best full-size truck in '09, prior to the Silverado for '10.
Ford is definitely benefitting image-wise from not taking TARP money, but look at Edwards' forums and their late-model stuff is not immune from problems. Not taking TARP money and the type of product built are not necessarily related. GM's warranty is better, I do know that.
As a Studebaker buff (although generally not pre-war), I am aware that that name became a real albatross for Studebaker!
That article mentions the Studebaker National Museum, of which we are members. It's a beautiful, recent facility, and a great place to show off the history of my favorite marque.
It's funny...no one in my family would have been caught dead in a Studebaker, but I'm old enough to remember that they were neatly 'different'. I find I like the '60's models for a lot of the same reasons that I liked the downsized '77 Caprice Classic a lot...clean, simple styling, roomy interior, practical.
GM also noted that its factory footprint is shifting to emerging nations. Today, 43 percent of GM's vehicles are built in low-cost countries, where GM pays workers less than $15 an hour for wages and benefits combined. Those countries include China and Mexico.
An additional 17 percent of GM vehicles are built in so-called medium-cost countries, such as South Korea and Brazil. Wages and benefits combined for those GM workers total between $15 and $30 an hour.
Go America... :sick:
It's great to cheer for the home team. Ever hear of "Stockholm Syndrome"?
Personally, I'd like to see that trend continue, especially for items that don't require a lot of environmental pollution to be manufactured. As for those items, if some country wants to poison its own land for a few bucks, well, that's their decision.
After all, isn't that what many Japanese automakers figured out and now do? The Koreans?
Not to beat a dead horse, but I personally have been invited to the BMW plant near where I live (yes, I also own BMW's) to participate in product design changes/suggestions/evaluations. The most recent visit was in relation to vehicle A/C design, as the requirements in the southern US are far different than the ones in Bavaria.
Its always fun, because while you are there, you get to drive some really fast cars on BMW's closed test track, where you can "drive it like you stole it!".
The new Z4 model interior was designed by women. I guess that's why the cup holders are inside the center console (no lie).
I'm just poking fun at you, but in all seriousness, you do have a valid point about some of the new "safer" design implementations.
My wife has a 2005 MINI convertible, and you practically need a periscope to see out the back when the top is up, due to the roll-bar being integral to the rear seats.They finally designed a way to have it safely retracted and improve the visibility around 2009, but in her car, I would not consider having it unless it had the backup sensor/alarm system option (hers does have it).
As for your particular case, I don't know the answer about seat swapping. Sorry, but good luck!
At least Ford Chevy and Dodge pickups don't have don't have their frames rust out from under them within 10 years like Toyotas
Often I wait 15 minutes and call back and hope to looped to a different call center.
Cincinnati Bell is really good. Their phone centers are all English that is easy to understand. Their internet centers about half the time end up in other countries. Other tiimes I've gotten someone in Florida and other areas including Cincinnati.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As Unemployed Lose Benefits More Seek Welfare Benefits
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Well we need to admit that in the eyes of many (too many) consumers, GM is a highly damaged brand. IMHO they made a big mistake in not renaming the company after BK. They have not made enough of a break with the past. Hyundai is changing big time and so is Ford. I don't see as much from GM - more like incremental improvements. And their marketing is still overhyped while their products are still trying to catch up. They still have a lot of junkers in their lineup.
I'm not seeing it. 222 great reviews for the 2010 Equinox vs. 2 or 3 GM haters constantly espousing the same line on here. How come those 222 reviewers are not feeling the need to admit?
My neighbor has just had to do his first repair to his 2002 Sub. He failed to run in 3rd gear while towing for 1000s of miles and clogged his cat. conv. by bogging engine in high gear. I call it a user error, not any fault of GM's. The Sub does have the Mitsu coils though. Maybe not enough spark to sufficiently burn all the fuel?
GM sales of 4 core brands up 25% over same month last year.
I've never done any towing, so I don't know...but, shouldn't a transmission be "smart" enough that it would downshift on its own, if it was under enough load? Now a lot of those old 3-speed automatics won't kick down to second once you get over 65 mph or so, but every 4-speed I've driven would at least kick down to third pretty willingly, when needed in situations such as passing, or maintaining speed on a steep grade.
"General Motors is not a brand," said the 50-year-old Ewanick, on the job here now for three eventful months, in an interview with AutoObserver.
"Is (Procter & Gamble) a brand?" he asks and, without waiting for an answer that might be contrary, adds: "No, it's not a brand. I'm pushing this hard because I don't want to go back to the idea of selling GM
It sure ain't a brand...just a failed company that forgot to leave the failed name in the new organization!
GM market share down over 100% from the precipice....
Regards,
OW
Actually, the lion's share of the car's cost stays in the USA, much of it in the area whare the vehicle is manufactured, in the form of wages paid, parts purchased and taxes paid. In addition, it wouldn't be unusual for the "profits" to remain in $$$ and placed in American investments, as the dollar is weak against the Euro and some other currencies at this time.
Like almost every other country, the Koreans invest in the USA as well.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/31/report-nhtsa-investigating-steering-issues-on- -2011-hyundai-sona/
Do you have a data link for that percentage and information as to exactly how much goes for each of these costs?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No, I'm just using common sense. I doubt exact data exist, simply because supplier information is constantly changing, and it would be different for each manufacturer.
I know of no vehicle with a 50% or greater profit margin. And, there's no question the wages paid and all benefits derived from those wages remain in the US (other than possible investments made by those wage earners).
Coupled with the local parts suppliers, and its pretty obvious the lion's share of the cost of a car remains in the country of manufacture, unless a concerted effort is made to truck parts in from outside the country of manufacture.
I'm not aware of any foreign manufacturer (auto) in the US that does that.
I agree, however, that it would be interesting to see the actual numbers.
Same here, we all want the same thing, and that's to spend our hard earned dollars in a way that preserves the most jobs in the USA, not Mexico or Canada, but here in the good ole USofA.
that's to spend our hard earned dollars in a way that preserves the most jobs in the USA, not Mexico or Canada, but here in the good ole USofA.
If we look at the US as one large community, well...who wouldn't want that?
What I often find ironic is that some posters claim the loss of US auto manufacturing jobs to locations overseas is significant and dramatic (I agree with that part, anyway), but then turn around and make the claim (or at a minimum, imply) that auto manufacturing jobs provided domestically (in the US) by foreign brands make an insignificant contribution to the local as well as US economy.
Sorry, but it can't be both...its either one or the other.
Of course, some will claim the US brands pay better, but I think most would agree that the Big-3 pretty much showed the flaws and failures in pursuing that particular business model.
No doubt, it can be a complex issue. However, I don't think I have ever read of a single community that has had a foreign auto brand locate an assembly plant in its vicinity make negative statements about the plant's economic impact on the local (and state) community.
Yes, some individuals complain about the less-than-UAW wages paid as well as possible incentives, but that's it.
Certainly, there isn't any shortage of localities that wouldn't kill to get such a facility.
Certainly, there isn't any shortage of localities that wouldn't kill to get such a facility."
See, my theory is if they paid UAW wages and had to deal with UAW contracts (thus putting all companies on a level playing field) then they wouldn't want to be here.
HOWEVER, I do believe that the buying public would have them over a barrel, as I believe that a major reason why these imported nameplates sell so well nowadays is that they build them HERE, thus alleviating any guilt that a prospective buyer would have about not "Buying American". Close up shop now, and you create a firestorm of controversy over shipping these jobs away.
Yes, the UAW would bear the brunt of the criticism for "forcing" these jobs back overseas, but the unasked question would be how much would they save shipping the jobs back home vs. the number of sales they would lose due to the "guilt factor" of unbiased shoppers wanting to buy "American"
Also, while it is understood that there are differences in the standard of living in this country, which would allow for lower wages in one state and require higher wages in another, the USA CAN'T be one large community if you have 50 states cutting one another's throats to steal jobs from one another. If state A offers incentives for a company to move 500 jobs there from state B, then all you have managed to do is take 500 people OFF unemployment in state A and put 500 people ON it in state B.
It's my understanding that the transplants do pay UAW wages but don't submit to UAW work rules. That makes sense to me. After all, weren't UAW work rules a significant factor in the decline of the D3? Why should any company, foreign or domestic, hamstring itself with those rules? In almost any industry that you'd care to discuss, workforce flexibility is a key to success. And you can't have that if you're strangling yourself with archaic work rules.
If state A offers incentives for a company to move 500 jobs there from state B, then all you have managed to do is take 500 people OFF unemployment in state A and put 500 people ON it in state B.
You're right, but this was a fact of life long before the transplants came along. I know that at least some states were doing this as far back as the mid-1950s, & for all I know it was an old, established practice even then. I don't see any way to put an end to it.