You should qualify that by stating that TW is railing at the current crop of Republicans and not Republicans in general.

Even Warren Buffet and John Bogle, two incredibly smart men, have issues with the 'business at all cost' attitude of this adminstration.

I think pro-Communist leftists are wrong. I also think 'pure Capitalism' rightists are also wrong. Governments which let large amounts of their citizens starve don't last long, and there are inefficiencies in a purely caplitalistic system that can lead to systemic failure, especially when we move into a form of state-sponsored Capitalism where businesses are considered 'too large to fail' and are propped up using public funds.

Even the Bush adminstration has begun to concede this by finally taking action on pension funding to prevent a crisis that may become more expensive than the S&L bailout.

I do not think, for example, that the idea that it was overpaid workers who sunk GM is not being bought by the public. Anyone who has been in the market for cars, which includes a large segment of the population, realizes that the issue is that GM has failed to make cars that people want to buy. Noone believes that these kind of decisions are made by anyone other than 'top management', as TW correctly states.

Bogle and Buffet both seem disenchanted about the way this administration has approached regulating business as well as keeping the public finances. They know bad management when they see it.

I, as a Democrat for example, can criticize the Democratic party for failing to address racism and segregation until after 1960 without being anti-Democrat, since I am referring to distinct times within history. Currently, Republicans control two of the three branches of government. They are essentially responsible for every bad decision made by the goverment since they took control of Congress and the White House, which covers a lot of territory.

From the NY Times of 1 Jan 2006: Turn the engine off while rolling downhill. Accessories continue to run, but not from engine. Even you too can have a hybrid - according to GM.

Twelve years after the US government gave GM money to build a hybrid - and this is their best? GM will be running to the US government for protection. Why? Two new engines in 2006 - and both be 1950 technology pushrods - no overhead cam. Somehow they have a hybrid that does not drive the wheels? Plenty of Bull in an industry that is instead about power of horses.

A distinction, perhaps, but a mighty small difference, especially in that both he and they exist in this moment. Consider that his sole approach to Republicans is intemperate. You won't catch me making that mistake.

To be fair, they are likewise and to the same degree responsible for the good decisions made by the government, which also covers a lot of territory. Breaking totalitarianism is good for all mankind, by definition. Totalitarian organization models have their uses, primarily in the organization remaining functional under extremely difficult conditions and if damaged, but when the totalitarian model is applied to entire societies, the resulting regimes exist only to oppress. Oppression is simply bad.

Partisan enthusiasm for the respective philosophies of either the Democrat or Republican parties very much does not define which is actually good and actually bad. What it does define is which one you're sold on.

No, you are quite temperate in your approach to Republicans. Your comments on Democrats, however......

Again, we are not talking respective philosophies, we are talking execution. Until recently, the Republicans in Congress have voted as a block in rubber-stamping policies the President has wanted. Some of these policies are overtly pro-business at the expense of a majority of citizens.

What has begun to disturb moderates of both parties is the total fiscal breakdown associated with forcing tax cuts while denying the true costs of the war in Iraq as well as anti-terrorism spending.

Having any real criticism of this direction painted by partisan hacks as un-patriotic does not help to foster bipartisanship.

Well, since the criticism seems less real than partisan, and is leveled by partisan hacks itself, it's tainted.

My comments on "Democrats, however...." are temperate: they boil down to The lion's share of the Democratic Party doesn't come up to my idea of wisdom. What goes on is pandering where statesmanship is needed.

From The NY Times of 1 Feb 2006: GM wants to sell off a profitable division. Problem is that this division is the only profitable operation in GM - GMAC. But GM has conditions. GM reserves the right to buy back that division once GM becomes profitable. To potential buyers such as Citigroup and KKR, this is a problem. For if GM does not solve their problems, then GMAC has little value. But if GM does turn around, then the GMAC investment that has value must be surrendered.

GM is expected to drop $billions of underfunded pension funds on the American taxpayer as United Airlines, Delphi, and so many other companies have done previously. The game was simple. GM grossly underfunded those pension funds. Then when the stock market boomed in mid-1990s, GM claimed no more pension funding was necessary. When the stock market dropped back, then GM pensions fund were short $billions more. Then GM blames their losses on myths such as too many retirees. Had GM funded pension as they were suppose to when those employees were working, then GM would have no pension fund problem to blame. GM hopes you never learn these little details so that GM can blame unfair market problems and other diversions.

Why do market analysts let this continue without comment? No different than when Donald Trump was bankrupt. One analyst (Marvin Roffman by his employer Janney Montgomery Scott) had enough balls to accurately report that fact and was fired for honesty (as was demonstrated in the following courtroom battle). Even little Donald Trump has that much clot over honest assetments. Market analysts would never report, for example, that GM was only hours away from insolvency in 1990. Market analysts are unlikely today to declare how insolvent GM is for same reasons.

Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) is but one way that GM will dump debts on American taxpayers when they are ready. It's called corporate welfare. It will continue as long as so many Americans buy their products rather than do what we did to save both Chrysler and Ford in 1979 and 1981. We stopped buying inferior products and therefore remove their only problems - Ford and Chrysler top management. GM will not recover as long as Rick Wagoner and his staff are protected by those who 'Buy American' and therefore cause more downsizing of GM's assets - their employees.

GM will be in the news again today. Some comments from market analysts. An analyst from Goldman Sachs: A good price because they will not go bankrupt? Stock market was always willing to overlook GM weaknesses because of GM's size and how vindictive GM can be.

According to this Wired article, GM has literally torn apart the competition to help it decide that hybrids are not the future, and that it should focus its efforts in the hydrogen fuel cell side of things.

It only takes basic numbers from science to see through those GM myths. Hydrogen - a carrier - does not hold enough energy per pound. Since that hydrogen vehicle requires so many more pounds of hydrogen, what is big enough (or high enough pressure) to hold all that hydrogen? These are damning numbers.

Meanwhile transport and storage problems associated with hydrogen - from basic thermodynamics - says little energy carried by hydrogen actually produces useful work. Hydrogen as a fuel - a carrier - its numbers for transport and storage again say not economically viable.

Return to a question about competency of top GM management - who don't come from where the work gets done. Hydrogen as a fuel is that ridiculous. But the article really hides a much larger management problem.

The Wired article is about teardown. It fueled the Mona Lisa room even long before 1986. Top GM executives could see why GM engines failed more often, cost more to build, and were even taller - causing increased costs in materials, more block, more body, more suspension, etc.

Alex Mair who created Mona Liza room would later create Saturn. GM management could see why 70 Hp/liter engines resulted in lower costs, better engine performance, lower costs, etc. GM executives would see first hand why a technology developed in GM before 1975 caused other automakers to make superior products. But once that technology went through cost control analysis, then, well, still GM does not manufacturer 70 Hp/liter engines for every vehicle.

The joke about tear down: management spends all that money, then completely ignores the lessons. 30 years after GM demonstrated the technology, still GM cars don't have the 70 Hp/liter engine. Even when demonstrated superior in competition products, still GM management even makes new engines only using push rods. Those teardowns demonstrated why 1975 GM technology made competition products with two less cylinders per car - a massive decrease in parts and costs. 15 years of tear downs of cars with that stifled GM technology and still GM management still will not use that technology. It is the pathetic joke about tear downs. An overpaid block of lumber just cannot learn once petrified by his business school training.

The previous post about GM attempting to bankrupt the LA Times is because the LA Times even discussed this Mona Liza room. With tear downs mounted on their own Mona Liza room walls on the 17th floor, still, GM management could not authorize 70 Hp/liter technologies. Better, instead, to bankrupt the LA Times for telling that story. Notice that Wired told the story in a way that GM might not attack.

Appreciate what that Wired article really demonstrates. They will spend a fortune to learn how the competition does it - and still not use the superior technology. That is what happens when so many so hate America as to 'Buy American' - protect top GM management that just cannot learn the obvious. Their paralysis is created by a cost control mentality - that fears to innovate.

I enjoyed this line.
In my mind, there's no question that GM is trying to spin their inability to produce a decent hybrid as "we meant to do that."

Ford exploring new hydraulic launch system?

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/02/14/f...hybrid-system/

Interesting.

I wonder how big the hydraulic accumulator pressure tank would have to be? And how much energy it can store? Will it explode like a bomb if the truck gets in a crash? So many questions...

Great, just what I need, another plumbing project. :smack:

Ever do helium leak checking for toxic, pyrophoric, and corrosive gases? Doing same for hydrogen makes such testing - finding and fixing leaks - simple by comparison. And yet GM says we will replumb the entire nation with hydrogen? Only those without experience and basic science knowledge would believe their myth. Hydrogen as a fuel - as a carrier of energy - is nonsense.

Why a carrier? Because there is no hydrogen that contains significant energy. Hydrogen must be created from some other energy source. Hydrogen is not really an energy source - a fuel - as GM would have you believe. Hydrogen is only an energy carrier - and not a very good one.

Ever do helium leak checking for toxic, pyrophoric, and corrosive gases? Doing same for hydrogen makes such testing - finding and fixing leaks - simple by comparison. And yet GM says we will replumb the entire nation with hydrogen? Only those without experience and basic science knowledge would believe their myth. Hydrogen as a fuel - as a carrier of energy - is nonsense.

Why a carrier? Because there is no hydrogen that contains significant energy. Hydrogen must be created from some other energy source. Hydrogen is not really an energy source - a fuel - as GM would have you believe. Hydrogen is only an energy carrier - and not a very good one.

From CBSMarketWatch.com of 20 Feb 2006:
As long as the GM problem remains - its top management and especially the bean counter Rick Wagoner - GM will only continue along a well worn path taken by AT&T, big American steel companies, and Penn Central. GM does not even have, standard, 70 Hp/liter engines in their products. In each case, top management was not removed while that top management blamed employees, unfair competition, the economy, economies of scale, the LA Times, and everything else but the only problem - top management.

Don't hold your breath. They've got a long, long way to go before that's going to happen around here. :headshake

Not really. It's the same as with the hybrids. An innovative Japanese manufacturer builds the first commercially viable models, licenses the technology, and drags the American manufacturers kicking and screaming into the marketplace.

Toyota had the first commercially available hybrid in the US, followed by Honda.

American manufacturers haved been working with fuel cells. There are even buses in the US running on fuel cells. I still own stock in Ballard Power, which has gone from $3 to $150 and back down to about $6. It is the company that was partnered with Ford.

The founder of the company has started a venture to attempt to build the infrastructure in the US and Canada. It is one of GM's Advanced Technology Partners. It just seems odd that with all of these partners, and with concept vehicles already being built, the Japanese are still going to beat GM to the market.

BAE North America is working with Daimler Chrysler on their hybrid bus. Some of the work is being done in Johnson City.
At the heart of the Orion VII hybrid bus is the HybriDriveTM propulsion system provided by BAE Systems. The system propels the bus with a single electric motor that is powered by a diesel-driven generator and an energy storage unit. Among the system's benefits:
The engine is smaller than that used in conventional buses and runs at optimum speed for clean operation and efficiency.
The design offers quicker acceleration, helping drivers merge into heavy traffic.
Customers enjoy a quieter ride than on a conventional diesel bus.
The system design eliminates the transmission, thereby removing a major maintenance item on vehicles operated in heavy stop-and-go conditions.
A regenerative braking system uses the drive motor to slow the bus, effectively turning the motor into a generator to help recharge the energy storage system. This feature saves energy and also reduces brake wear by about one-third, reducing the frequency of brake maintenance.

Bullshit. It's not the same as hybrids. H-Y-D-R-O-G-E-N!
Where you gonna get it? It takes a ton of energy to get hydrogen from anywhere. They're using natural gas and that's not cheap or plentiful. Getting it from water is even more expensive. Then you've got to distribute it.
Like I said, "Don't hold your breath. They've got a long, long way to go before that's going to happen around here."

Hybrids are viable right now, but this Honda/Hydrogen deal is way off, if ever, for this country. :headshake

What is wrong with GM? What is always wrong with GM, Back in the '70s my Dad had a friend who was a GM engieneer. When my Dad asked him why they didn't put a 4-53 2 stroke diesel in the pick up trucks instead of some POS made out of a big gas V/8? He was told that the public would not buy a 4 cylender engine when they could have a V-8.
And the GM 2 stroke diesel engines will last forever, Why put them in a car that will only last 5 years.
Ford uses a V-8 built by Navistar (International Harvester), and Dodge uses an inline 6 cyl. turbocharged monster. My 91 dodge 3/4 ton has a twisted frame and the transmission has only 2 speeds that can be used because that engine has so much torque that it destroyed the truck, after 750,000 miles. The only thing we use this truck for is feeding the cows. that engine starts and runs like it did when it was new.

As far as Hydrogen fuel goes, we have a viable fuel source now every time you flush your toilet. Self produced methane has been in use for years in many third world countries. Hog farmers, and dairymen have been using this technology to produce eletricity with very positive results.

GMs got a problem? Yes they brought on them selfs.

So many have considered saving GM from itself. Ross Perot tried and was eventually paid a massive and handsome reward to go away. T Boone Pickens had looking into it. Carl Icahn considered it. Kirk Kerkorian is the latest to try having bought just short of 10% GM stock over 18 months, suffered large losses, got GM to talk to Nissan and Renault, and has apparently just given up after initially suggesting he would increase his GM ownership to 12%. From the NY Times of 7 Oct 2006: From the Washington Post: That is what Ross Perot also complained of 20 years earlier.

The Nissan Renault alliance fell through when Wagoner (GM's top executive) insisted those other companies pay a premium surcharge for doing the alliance with GM. Wagoner somehow insisted that doing business with GM would vastly reward those other two companies. Maybe if GM had something of value to provide. GM products are some of the world's crappiest. The reason that Nissan and Renault were talking is because their changes to GM would make GM more valuable - in direct contradiction to Wagoner's thinking. GM without Nissan and Renault would only continue to stagnate. Why should they pay GM a premium to save GM?

1970s meant innovation with overhead cams. 1980 were the 70 Hp/liter engine (85 and 100 for turbo and supercharged). 1990s were the development of a hybrid. GM still has no overhead cam engines, still does not sell 70 Hp/Liter engines which is why so many GM cars are six and eight cylinders - for more expensive. And, of course, GM still has no hybrid. Classic when management all comes from business schools, does not drive, and fears innovation.

GM bitches about fuel standards.

So basically, now that everyone else in the world has shown that fuel efficient cars can be made, it's unfair to actually set better standards. Cry me a river, Bob.:bawling:

Well it just comes down to the dollar sign at the end of the day.

If they choose to market more efficient cars more effectively, they'll have a growing market. If they choose to rest on their laurels and let the consumers buy what they've already been told they want, then that's what will continue to happen.

To manufacture more fuel efficient vehicles the initial costs would be exhorbitant and that's the only thing stopping the big guys atm. When they're either forced to do it, or realize that fuel for cars as they are now is starting to get a bit more thin on the ground, they'll have to bite the bullet. After that, they'll just tell consumers they don't want big huge gas guzzlers. What they want is something sporty and economical. ;)

Another issue is steel... there are other alternatives that are as strong and not as heavy, but the US auto industry is so deeply in bed with steel that the idea of anything else is just impossible for them to even think of.

And why can some make more fuel efficient cars? Because they have been using and are now upgrading from a technology developed in GM in 1972 ... and GM still does not have those technologies in their 2006 vehicles.

Recently did some GM product numbers. GM products once only did 52 Hp/liter. Now GM is doing 61 HP per liter in some V-8s. Why would they spend any money developing V-8s? No vehicle needed a V8. 80% of Toyotas are four cylinder engines. And who is eating GM's lunch every day? Same company that put GM's 1972 technology in their 1992 cars - Toyota.

GM can cry all it wants. But its top management does not even drive. Its top management did not even come from where the work gets done. Even its chief engineer - a graphics art student.

Pretty is defined by what it does - not the shiny paint. Any whore can fix herself with more makeup. Does that really make her pretty? Only bankruptcy can fix GMs only problem - management that does not even know how to drive.

Ford problems are same. Ford also does not have 70 HP per liter engines in all vehicles. Like GM, Ford puts whore V-8s in trucks to appease ‘big dic’ mentalities – rather than go after intelligent customers. Well, at least Ford is admitting how bad Ford has stifled innovation. So Ford may be negotiating to buy that technology from Toyota.

It is called Research and Development. If the executive is a graduate of a business school, then R&D (and engineers) is an expense. If the man comes from where the work gets done (by definition, an American patriot), then that same innovation is an asset.

Unfortunately it is that simple. And unfortunately, so many Americans so hate America as to 'buy American'. That 'buy American' attitude is why the problem remains. The real "only thing stopping the big guys" are still too many Americans who are so dumb as to believe George Jr and who also 'buy American'. The problem of intelligence starts at the source - those who keep telling GM, et al to keep making crap.

The R&D is done TW. They already know how to make more fuel efficient cars. It's converting the factories that provides the greater expense.

That was my point.

Ford's new CEO Mulally could make the difference. He turned Boeing around after 9/11. I heard he created a War Room where he presented the new strategy for the next 3-5 years to the management. All the assets have been mortgaged, including the blue Ford Logo and 82000 people will be laid off.

My brother mentioned yesterday that his Dodge 3/4 ton pickup with a "Hemi" V-8 and automatic transmission gets the exact same gas mileage as his Mazda Miata, 4 cylinder, stick shift. :D

This summer!

http://www.portfolio.com/news-market...l-Cell-Vehicle

And now this:

http://physorg.com/news122655117.html

Not around here.

The terrorists will love this technology, beer cans to bombs.

They are going to the perfect source of corporate welfare - wacko right wing Republican extremists. GM, et al now wants free government money because, after all, throwing money at anti-American companies will save jobs and reduce the deficit. Right.
From MarketWatch.com: Let's see. GM was given $100million by the government to develop a hybrid in 1994. Fifteen years later - 10 years obsolete - GM still does not have a hybrid. GM is hyping their first hybrid as the only new product - to save the company. The Volt will not appear for another two years – 16 years after the Congress provided corporate welfare to build a hybrid. How does a company run by MBA auto designers solve their problems? They will run to the government for money.

A country that believes in free markets would let GM go to bankruptcy. Then all those America jobs would be saved. The only reason for GM job losses is Rick Wagoner and his staff of bean counters. How did we save Chrysler? We gave Chrysler no government money; we forced Chrysler to eliminate their only problem. Top management was replaced by someone how knew how to drive - Lee Iacocca. Bankruptcy of GM would also eliminate the only reason why GM refused to innovate - Rick Wagoner. To save his job

The only problem with GM - its product line reflects how MBA school management innovates. GM deperately needs bankrucpty to save those employees jobs and eliminate the only problem in GM.

Ever significant innovation in a GM car in the past 30 years has been all but required by EPA regulation. It takes government regulation before an MBA will let car guys innovate? And then the same MBA will run to government for corporate welfare. Ironically, right wing Republicans support this 'bridge to nowhere'.

GM sucks - is that what you are saying T-dub....AGAIN. I think that horse has been beaten to death?

Hell, tw hates, it appears, any boss who ever went to boss college and passed boss lessons and graduated. You end up wondering just why.

Wonder how he feels about engineers with degrees in engineering?

Hell no. This was bait so that the dumbest person I ever knew would post - UG. UG - fist fights never occured even in any bar I drank in. But the minute you walked in, everyone would want to hit you. You are that dumb. You are so stupid that even Forest Gump would want to hit you.

Chrysler got loan guarantees.

Only after Chrysler 1) fixed the problem - replaced bean counters Townsend and Richardo with Iacocca, 2) still had to obtain loans from private sources, and 3) still had to pay the same high interest rates. In fact, Chrysler almost failed when Deutsche Bank backed out at the last minute. Chrysler had to earn their loans by first fixing the reason for Chrysler’s near demise – bad management resulting in bad products.

GM does not want to fix their problem and wants the government to loan the money at much lower interest rates. IOW an anti-America company (paraphrasing classicman) now wants us to pay - corporate welfare - so GM can continue making the same mistakes. At what point does a GM stock holder suffer risks because stockholders remained in denial? At what point does a bankruptcy threat become so great that stock holders finally demand intelligent management?

So many tried to save GM including Ross Perot and Carl Icahn. GM stockholders refused to admit the obvious. Therefore GM stockholders should be rewarded as the partners of Bear Stearns were also rewarded. Bankruptcy is necessary to remove GM's only problem - Rick Wagoner and his staff. Instead, GM wants free money to keep making bad products.

Only two months ago, GM said they had plenty of cash. Suddenly GM need tens of $billions? Oh. Lying on the spread sheets is also acceptable? Well, when AT&T was finally exposed as lying, then AT&T had to disintegrate - be consumed by companies with responsible management. Just another example of free market bankruptcies solving the problem - bad management.

Gerald Ford to New York City: Drop dead. Without free Federal money, then NYC decided to solve their bankruptcy problems. As a result, NYC did become fiscally responsible again.

I call BS. Why you were just calling for his banning not too long ago.
Now you want him to post - :headshake

That the best you can do? Allegations of dumbth from a man unaware that the given name Forrest contains two R's? While dodging any germane response to the point I brought up... did an MBA once fuck your chihuahua or something?

The Cellarites I fight with the hardest are really the most childish.

When it comes to the same old bullshit time and time again, why does classicman always attack tw and never attack Urbane Guerrilla? classicman loves UG's extremist politics - not concepts based in reality?

UG routinely posts personal attacks and political rhetoric from the George Jr administration as broadcast by Rush Limbaugh. Apparently classicman approves. There is no significant inflation. George said so. There is no threat of recession. George said so. Throwing more tax rates at the rich has only make a stronger American economy (ignoring that the common man has seen a seven year decrease in his income). We don't burn too much oil. George said so. And classicman approves?

It is what wacko extremists do. They cannot challenge facts. So they attack the messenger.

Please stop - you are whining like a little girl.

There ya go making assumptions again Tommy Boy. Oh and wrong ones as usual. Weren't you the one who lived only in a fact based world? What ever happened to that?

And FWIW - you never addressed the actual comment I made even though you quoted it - another "as usual."

Sweet!

Which proves that classicman is as wacko extremist as UG. Posting personal attacks is what wacko extremists do. And again, classicman posts without offering any logical thought. UG has another disciple.

Ahem. May I point you towards...Hmmm.

Absolutely. UG loves it when others mirror him. Can't you just feel his love?

do you completely miss that you fit the definition of a wacko extremist? a definition that you repeatedly post of our benefit?

No logical thought needed on this one - It was just an observation.

yeh but his wacko extremist is the complete polar opposite of UG's In fact, they are so far apart they are virtually mirror images.

Or opposite ends of the ping pong table. Etcetera.

A walking, brawling dialectic we.

He has to ask. Man, that's funny. Well, it's probably because tw has never mastered the art of being lovable -- and is still single and very likely a virgin as well, being (stand by for the personal attack) about as attractive as a Morlock, on the evidence of what is present in his postings and what is absent. An ability to read between the lines is neither useless nor rare.

I dunno, I don't quote Rush. The guy who needs me to be a Pinocchio for the Administration is setting himself up for such a public crotchpunting he can use his 'nads for Jayne-hat pompoms by the time I'm done, so out to lunch on the topic is he. I get more Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly time nowadays. Perhaps tw would rather I take Ted Rall as an example of all that is good, speaking of extremists. The guy appeared on Hannity & Colmes once, and I've never seen Sean Hannity so pissed -- and Alan Colmes wasn't saying anything in Rall's defense either, and his left eyebrow was way up in his hairline the whole time. Serious contempt, I'd think.

Hang on... so the reason Classicman doesn't support TW is because he's a virgin?

Poor old Jonas Brothers eh? Bet no-one likes them.
Oh, wait...

I'm a virgin? Since when??

I volunteer to solve that problem.

Uh, thanks but no thanks. That train left the station about 25 years ago.

I didn't know you swung that way.

Sheldon! Sheldon! I think I found you a date. :D