Kill the Messenger - this time the LA Times

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Not on the evidence, dear boy, not on the evidence. Threads with numerous posts by you that do not include less-than-justifiable railing at Republicans by you are more the exception than the rule.

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.

[tw]

From the NY Times of 1 Jan 2006:

Hybrids, Hydrogen and Hype
All hybrids are not created equal. G.M.'s "mild hybrid" pickups use electric motors to run accessories, but not to power the wheels.

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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by richlevy

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

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.

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.

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.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

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.

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

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

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.

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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

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.

[tw]

From The NY Times of 1 Feb 2006:

Ford and Chrysler Sales Break Losing Streak
General Motors Corp.(GM.N), on the other hand, was expected to post a sales decline of as much as 10 percent later on Wednesday. The world's largest automaker last week reported a net loss of $4.8 billion, its fifth straight quarterly loss.

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.

[tw]

GM will be in the news again today. Some comments from market analysts.

"We continue to question how GM can maintain a business in which 40% of North American volume is directed to fleets and GM's own employees," according to Deutsche Bank's Rod Lache.

An analyst from Goldman Sachs:

Cites valuation, given belief that bankruptcy is very unlikely in the near term

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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.

GM thinks it has a better idea. [than hybrids] In the back of the teardown building, alongside the dissected Prius and Malibu, lie the parts of a GM demonstration vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Although the vehicle has more total parts than the Prius, almost none of them move, eliminating many of the finely machined gears and engine components of the traditional auto. The tables bearing the drive trains of the Prius and Malibu are laden with parts; those for the fuel cell car are nearly empty. The three teardowns tell the story of GM's plans: Go directly from gasoline to fuel cells with a mere nod to hybrid tech. At the Tokyo auto show in October, GM unveiled its fuel cell-powered Sequel. Larry Burns, GM's vice president for R&D and planning, announced that the company would be able to "design and validate a competitive fuel cell propulsion system by 2010."

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

[glatt]

I enjoyed this line.

Originally Posted by tw

An overpaid block of lumber just cannot learn once petrified by his business school training.

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."

[Undertoad]

Ford exploring new hydraulic launch system?

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

[glatt]

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...

[BigV]

Great, just what I need, another plumbing project.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

Great, just what I need, another plumbing project.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

Great, just what I need, another plumbing project.

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.