Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 26, 2009 at 2:38 PM in reply to: OT: There’s never been a better time to buy a GM car…. #387808April 26, 2009 at 2:38 PM in reply to: OT: There’s never been a better time to buy a GM car…. #388006
patientrenter
Participant[quote=Rt.66]masayako wrote:
“Pontiac should have been axed
Submitted by masayako on April 23, 2009 – 3:46pm.
Pontiac should have been axed long long time ago. GM sucks. They deserve to go backrupt.”
—————–WADR you are an a gleaming example of what is terribly wrong with this country.
Any idea how many people will lose thier jobs when GM goes belly up? ANy idea how many pensions GM supports? (490,000). Any idea who gets to support those people out of work and pick up the retirement needs? (you do).
Have you ever owned a Pontiac? I have a relative with one and it’s stellar. I owned two when I was younger and loved them. Perfect fit for the young boy racer crowd Pontiacs are targeted to, reliable, fast, inexpensive and economical.
GM…100 years of providing hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs with benefits to Americans and in some weird, twisted, perversion of sanity throngs of lemming Americans chant “death to GM”.
Your Japanese corporate masters have achieved full control of your little mind. Enjoy your Honda and…….. super high taxes to cover those who will be tossed out of work when your wish is granted, and the inevitable unemployment that will reach you and your job about the time you realize that a country who does not support itself and defend its jobs will die, and a country without a healthy, vibrant and growing manufacturing base is destined to send its money to the countries that DO manufacture stuff.
[/quote]
Rt 66, I see you’re not a subscriber to that Adam Smith ‘invisible hand’ thing, are you? Perhaps you’d approve of each person having to supply all their own goods and services? Or would you allow it to extend out to family? (I hope you have a good farm and farmer in your family.) Or should we just cut off the trading at our borders, because splitting up tasks between us and those damn untrustworthy foreigners just isn’t worth any benefits we might get?
I stopped considering US makers for my own car purchases because they consistently lost to Toyota and Honda and others on the things I cared about the most – reliability and practicality. Toyota and Honda beat the domestic makers by a margin consistently for at least 20 years, and that is paying off. Now the US makers need to beat the competition on quality by a good margin for 10 years minimum, and then I’ll start to look at their offerings. In the meanwhile, they can focus on winning through gimmicks and marketing and subsidies, and a few narrow hits, and I’ll let others buy for all that. Toyota and Honda didn’t just show up on the shores of the US with the unfair advantage of a good reputation for value and quality – they earned it slowly by providing the value and quality consistently over decades.
April 26, 2009 at 2:38 PM in reply to: OT: There’s never been a better time to buy a GM car…. #388061Participant[quote=Rt.66]masayako wrote:
“Pontiac should have been axed
Submitted by masayako on April 23, 2009 – 3:46pm.
Pontiac should have been axed long long time ago. GM sucks. They deserve to go backrupt.”
—————–WADR you are an a gleaming example of what is terribly wrong with this country.
Any idea how many people will lose thier jobs when GM goes belly up? ANy idea how many pensions GM supports? (490,000). Any idea who gets to support those people out of work and pick up the retirement needs? (you do).
Have you ever owned a Pontiac? I have a relative with one and it’s stellar. I owned two when I was younger and loved them. Perfect fit for the young boy racer crowd Pontiacs are targeted to, reliable, fast, inexpensive and economical.
GM…100 years of providing hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs with benefits to Americans and in some weird, twisted, perversion of sanity throngs of lemming Americans chant “death to GM”.
Your Japanese corporate masters have achieved full control of your little mind. Enjoy your Honda and…….. super high taxes to cover those who will be tossed out of work when your wish is granted, and the inevitable unemployment that will reach you and your job about the time you realize that a country who does not support itself and defend its jobs will die, and a country without a healthy, vibrant and growing manufacturing base is destined to send its money to the countries that DO manufacture stuff.
[/quote]
Rt 66, I see you’re not a subscriber to that Adam Smith ‘invisible hand’ thing, are you? Perhaps you’d approve of each person having to supply all their own goods and services? Or would you allow it to extend out to family? (I hope you have a good farm and farmer in your family.) Or should we just cut off the trading at our borders, because splitting up tasks between us and those damn untrustworthy foreigners just isn’t worth any benefits we might get?
I stopped considering US makers for my own car purchases because they consistently lost to Toyota and Honda and others on the things I cared about the most – reliability and practicality. Toyota and Honda beat the domestic makers by a margin consistently for at least 20 years, and that is paying off. Now the US makers need to beat the competition on quality by a good margin for 10 years minimum, and then I’ll start to look at their offerings. In the meanwhile, they can focus on winning through gimmicks and marketing and subsidies, and a few narrow hits, and I’ll let others buy for all that. Toyota and Honda didn’t just show up on the shores of the US with the unfair advantage of a good reputation for value and quality – they earned it slowly by providing the value and quality consistently over decades.
April 26, 2009 at 2:38 PM in reply to: OT: There’s never been a better time to buy a GM car…. #388200Participant[quote=Rt.66]masayako wrote:
“Pontiac should have been axed
Submitted by masayako on April 23, 2009 – 3:46pm.
Pontiac should have been axed long long time ago. GM sucks. They deserve to go backrupt.”
—————–WADR you are an a gleaming example of what is terribly wrong with this country.
Any idea how many people will lose thier jobs when GM goes belly up? ANy idea how many pensions GM supports? (490,000). Any idea who gets to support those people out of work and pick up the retirement needs? (you do).
Have you ever owned a Pontiac? I have a relative with one and it’s stellar. I owned two when I was younger and loved them. Perfect fit for the young boy racer crowd Pontiacs are targeted to, reliable, fast, inexpensive and economical.
GM…100 years of providing hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs with benefits to Americans and in some weird, twisted, perversion of sanity throngs of lemming Americans chant “death to GM”.
Your Japanese corporate masters have achieved full control of your little mind. Enjoy your Honda and…….. super high taxes to cover those who will be tossed out of work when your wish is granted, and the inevitable unemployment that will reach you and your job about the time you realize that a country who does not support itself and defend its jobs will die, and a country without a healthy, vibrant and growing manufacturing base is destined to send its money to the countries that DO manufacture stuff.
[/quote]
Rt 66, I see you’re not a subscriber to that Adam Smith ‘invisible hand’ thing, are you? Perhaps you’d approve of each person having to supply all their own goods and services? Or would you allow it to extend out to family? (I hope you have a good farm and farmer in your family.) Or should we just cut off the trading at our borders, because splitting up tasks between us and those damn untrustworthy foreigners just isn’t worth any benefits we might get?
I stopped considering US makers for my own car purchases because they consistently lost to Toyota and Honda and others on the things I cared about the most – reliability and practicality. Toyota and Honda beat the domestic makers by a margin consistently for at least 20 years, and that is paying off. Now the US makers need to beat the competition on quality by a good margin for 10 years minimum, and then I’ll start to look at their offerings. In the meanwhile, they can focus on winning through gimmicks and marketing and subsidies, and a few narrow hits, and I’ll let others buy for all that. Toyota and Honda didn’t just show up on the shores of the US with the unfair advantage of a good reputation for value and quality – they earned it slowly by providing the value and quality consistently over decades.
Participantveees, I am curious: why would 3/4 of 1% make a difference in a major purchase decision? Have you ever decided not to buy any new TV because the prices were 3/4 of 1% higher than you expected/wanted?
If 3/4 of 1% is actually enough to push this from affordable to unaffordable, then have you considered that paying the remaining 99.25% – that’s 133 times as much – is probably even more unaffordable for you?
Participantveees, I am curious: why would 3/4 of 1% make a difference in a major purchase decision? Have you ever decided not to buy any new TV because the prices were 3/4 of 1% higher than you expected/wanted?
If 3/4 of 1% is actually enough to push this from affordable to unaffordable, then have you considered that paying the remaining 99.25% – that’s 133 times as much – is probably even more unaffordable for you?
Participantveees, I am curious: why would 3/4 of 1% make a difference in a major purchase decision? Have you ever decided not to buy any new TV because the prices were 3/4 of 1% higher than you expected/wanted?
If 3/4 of 1% is actually enough to push this from affordable to unaffordable, then have you considered that paying the remaining 99.25% – that’s 133 times as much – is probably even more unaffordable for you?
Participantveees, I am curious: why would 3/4 of 1% make a difference in a major purchase decision? Have you ever decided not to buy any new TV because the prices were 3/4 of 1% higher than you expected/wanted?
If 3/4 of 1% is actually enough to push this from affordable to unaffordable, then have you considered that paying the remaining 99.25% – that’s 133 times as much – is probably even more unaffordable for you?
Participantveees, I am curious: why would 3/4 of 1% make a difference in a major purchase decision? Have you ever decided not to buy any new TV because the prices were 3/4 of 1% higher than you expected/wanted?
If 3/4 of 1% is actually enough to push this from affordable to unaffordable, then have you considered that paying the remaining 99.25% – that’s 133 times as much – is probably even more unaffordable for you?
Participant[quote=flu]Why are there so many people so that allow complete strangers to assume their credit in one shape or form? It’s not the first time I read about something like this.
It’s just ironic, that people take such proactive steps against identity theft, but then when it comes to “investments”, anything goes. It’s like folks buying the most advanced security system/doorlocks for their homes, and then letting a complete stranger borrow the keys thinking that he/she isn’t going to steal anything inside.
I don’t get it.[/quote]
flu, you don’t “understand” it, because, in a rational world, it makes no sense. However, and I think you know this, we don’t live in an economically rational world. Everyone kinda knew that it was OK to borrow without checking to make sure that you could and would repay your loans, come hell or high water. Culturally, repayment of debts is pretty much optional in the US of 2009, and people could see this building back in 2006 and 2007 and 2008. So these folks were making a rational choice for the culture they live in. They were getting a good deal if prices went up – and that was the more likely outcome – and a not very bad deal if prices went down. The smartest people were the ones who used their credit to the max to buy houses as early as possible with little money down, and then sold at least a few with the greatest appreciation before the collapse. But even those who didn’t sell in time were making a rational economic decision, given the biases we’ve allowed in our housing markets through small dowmpayments etc.
Participant[quote=flu]Why are there so many people so that allow complete strangers to assume their credit in one shape or form? It’s not the first time I read about something like this.
It’s just ironic, that people take such proactive steps against identity theft, but then when it comes to “investments”, anything goes. It’s like folks buying the most advanced security system/doorlocks for their homes, and then letting a complete stranger borrow the keys thinking that he/she isn’t going to steal anything inside.
I don’t get it.[/quote]
flu, you don’t “understand” it, because, in a rational world, it makes no sense. However, and I think you know this, we don’t live in an economically rational world. Everyone kinda knew that it was OK to borrow without checking to make sure that you could and would repay your loans, come hell or high water. Culturally, repayment of debts is pretty much optional in the US of 2009, and people could see this building back in 2006 and 2007 and 2008. So these folks were making a rational choice for the culture they live in. They were getting a good deal if prices went up – and that was the more likely outcome – and a not very bad deal if prices went down. The smartest people were the ones who used their credit to the max to buy houses as early as possible with little money down, and then sold at least a few with the greatest appreciation before the collapse. But even those who didn’t sell in time were making a rational economic decision, given the biases we’ve allowed in our housing markets through small dowmpayments etc.
Participant[quote=flu]Why are there so many people so that allow complete strangers to assume their credit in one shape or form? It’s not the first time I read about something like this.
It’s just ironic, that people take such proactive steps against identity theft, but then when it comes to “investments”, anything goes. It’s like folks buying the most advanced security system/doorlocks for their homes, and then letting a complete stranger borrow the keys thinking that he/she isn’t going to steal anything inside.
I don’t get it.[/quote]
flu, you don’t “understand” it, because, in a rational world, it makes no sense. However, and I think you know this, we don’t live in an economically rational world. Everyone kinda knew that it was OK to borrow without checking to make sure that you could and would repay your loans, come hell or high water. Culturally, repayment of debts is pretty much optional in the US of 2009, and people could see this building back in 2006 and 2007 and 2008. So these folks were making a rational choice for the culture they live in. They were getting a good deal if prices went up – and that was the more likely outcome – and a not very bad deal if prices went down. The smartest people were the ones who used their credit to the max to buy houses as early as possible with little money down, and then sold at least a few with the greatest appreciation before the collapse. But even those who didn’t sell in time were making a rational economic decision, given the biases we’ve allowed in our housing markets through small dowmpayments etc.
Participant[quote=flu]Why are there so many people so that allow complete strangers to assume their credit in one shape or form? It’s not the first time I read about something like this.
It’s just ironic, that people take such proactive steps against identity theft, but then when it comes to “investments”, anything goes. It’s like folks buying the most advanced security system/doorlocks for their homes, and then letting a complete stranger borrow the keys thinking that he/she isn’t going to steal anything inside.
I don’t get it.[/quote]
flu, you don’t “understand” it, because, in a rational world, it makes no sense. However, and I think you know this, we don’t live in an economically rational world. Everyone kinda knew that it was OK to borrow without checking to make sure that you could and would repay your loans, come hell or high water. Culturally, repayment of debts is pretty much optional in the US of 2009, and people could see this building back in 2006 and 2007 and 2008. So these folks were making a rational choice for the culture they live in. They were getting a good deal if prices went up – and that was the more likely outcome – and a not very bad deal if prices went down. The smartest people were the ones who used their credit to the max to buy houses as early as possible with little money down, and then sold at least a few with the greatest appreciation before the collapse. But even those who didn’t sell in time were making a rational economic decision, given the biases we’ve allowed in our housing markets through small dowmpayments etc.
Participant[quote=flu]Why are there so many people so that allow complete strangers to assume their credit in one shape or form? It’s not the first time I read about something like this.
It’s just ironic, that people take such proactive steps against identity theft, but then when it comes to “investments”, anything goes. It’s like folks buying the most advanced security system/doorlocks for their homes, and then letting a complete stranger borrow the keys thinking that he/she isn’t going to steal anything inside.
I don’t get it.[/quote]
flu, you don’t “understand” it, because, in a rational world, it makes no sense. However, and I think you know this, we don’t live in an economically rational world. Everyone kinda knew that it was OK to borrow without checking to make sure that you could and would repay your loans, come hell or high water. Culturally, repayment of debts is pretty much optional in the US of 2009, and people could see this building back in 2006 and 2007 and 2008. So these folks were making a rational choice for the culture they live in. They were getting a good deal if prices went up – and that was the more likely outcome – and a not very bad deal if prices went down. The smartest people were the ones who used their credit to the max to buy houses as early as possible with little money down, and then sold at least a few with the greatest appreciation before the collapse. But even those who didn’t sell in time were making a rational economic decision, given the biases we’ve allowed in our housing markets through small dowmpayments etc.
April 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM in reply to: Deadly New Mexican Flu Virus Sparks Global Pandemic Fear #387572Participant[quote=Enorah]And the fear machine continues.
[/quote]
+1.
How much of our news is just overplaying our fears? It has more in common with watching a slasher movie than any actual education about the broader world. But I know, the slasher movies are very popular, so never mind, and enjoy the show!
-
AuthorPosts
