Ford Methods and the Ford shops

You must have really good eyes or be psychic or something. That map and all the charts relate spending by STATES. Where do you get any kind of data from this about subsidies for "high-population-density URBAN AREAS"? Or don't you figure that rural areas exist east of the Mississippi?

Steve.

Tell you what: You tell us about all the high-population-density urban areas in North Dakota (they get $1.73 back for every dollar they put in), and then I'll tell you about the ones in New Jersey (we get $0.55 back on every tax dollar we give the feds), and then we'll have George run the statistics to see what chance there is that the metros in NJ are getting the same as the rurals in ND. George is a master at running regression analyses.

Deal?

-- Ed Huntress

Like the need for computerized dome lights?

Never get the HMO's on board ED. If people got smart they would see how much the health co's are screwing them. Why people that work for companies that have "Free" health ins are to stupid to think just how much lower their wage is for that "Free" health ins.

I know I pay $20,000 a yr to Blue Screw.

My first car WAS a Toyota Tercel. Lasted 109,000 miles and a broken cam belt. Very nice, even if I did have to tilt my head to drive it. (I'm 6'2")

I've mentioned before how the ABS died on the Chevy and tried to kill me.

-gc

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:53:47 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Steve Austin quickly quoth:

We weren't talking about the marketeers' delusions of grandeur here. ;) And while we're at it, which maketing genius determined that there needed to be seven(?) cup holders per vehicle, all of which are too small to hold anything close in size to the Big Gulps which are so often bought?

I must save thousands of dollars per year by not drinking soda pop.

-- My future starts when I wake up every morning... Every day I find something creative to do with my life. -- Miles Davis

Now there's an idea. We'll take aggregate data that includes salary payments, retirement payments, purchases of products from companies and a bunch of other things that have nothing to do with "subsidies" and run an abstract regression analysis to MAKE the data appear to support the conclusion and then say that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand the calculations.

Personally, I like the low-tech method. Go to this web site

See under Revenues the $34 million labeled "Intergovernmental Revenue"? Now go down and read where that comes from. See how it comes from all the people in the state who pay a state tax and then that money is transfered to the city from the state? That's a simple, straight-forward, blatantly obvious subsidy for an urban area.

Steve.

Ford sales are dropping because of a boycott of Ford.

================ This is standard excuse. As the movie says "show me the money."

Track the inflation adjusted stock prices of Ford and GMC. FoMoCo has just eliminated all stock holder equity by hocking everything the company owns. When management burns through the cash raised, funding their deferred compensation trust funds and pre-paid retirement annuities, the stockholder will have nothing, and the taxpayers will be on the hook [again] via the PBGC for the pensions, either directly through taxes, or indirectly through the affect on their [solvent] pension funds.

Modern American corporate management no more believes their "making money for the stockholder" cant than the commissars in the Soviet Union believed in their "power to the people" slogans.

Record profits should equal record taxes and/or record dividends. SHOW ME THE MONEY.

It's simple to me. Many, many folks, some of whom are well versed in all thing that corporations do with their investment moneys, continue to invest their funds in Ford and other, also struggling, corporations. If they felt that they weren't going to get their money's worth, they'd put their money elsewhere. The fact that they're still there shows me the money. Enron, and a few others, were known to play funky music with the stockholders' money, and they didn't get away with it. They may be able to get away with it for a little while, but eventually all evildoers get punished. I haven't put Ford and GM in that category on the merit of their struggling to stay afloat (also translated to: keeping the stockholders confident in their ability to make a profit.) There's a whole lot of grumps out there, railing about the "evil corporations," and if I thought any of them had any salt, I'd be listening, but apparently I'm not. So far the "evil corporations" are providing an income that socialist governments and believers have yet failed to do, so I believe in capitalism because it's the most profitable game in town. Got a way that works better?

Your point is OK on its face, Carl, but one question is how much corruption and fraud we're supposed to tolerate in order to make "capitalism" do its finest work. One of my gripes is the gutting of the SEC's investigative arm, which some insiders say led directly to the runaway rise of insider trading, the bending-over to the hedge funds, and lots of other corporate fraud, petty and otherwise.

Is this a net positive thing? Cynicism over the markets is growing again, like it did decades ago. Stockholders are getting ripped left and right. How much of it should they be expected to take, in order to let "capitalism" run at full throttle? How much will put a damper on the markets?

At the same time, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley, it's argued, hurt our international competitiveness. Is that because the law simply was ill-conceived, or because fraud and corruption are standard elements of globalization, and that we have to pay that price to play?

If it's the latter, I'm ready to re-think some of our trade policies and corporate law. I can't believe that tolerating fraud and corruption is a good thing, either for us as a people or for our economic system. Bad drives out the good, and a fraud-laden game is going to hurt us eventually, if all we watch is the DJIA.

-- Ed Huntress

=============== As corporate management continues to whine about Sarbanes-Oxley, it is well to remember that the intent of Sarbanes-Oxley was not to benefit/protect the corporations but rather the corporate stockholders and creditors. As the latest disclosures about stock-option backdating indicate, its only fault is it did not go far enough.

There is nothing wrong with the free market and capitalism [not the same thigs by the way, as capitalism tends to promote cartels to maximize profits/returns]. The problem is that the people who mouth the words and slogans loudest also tend to make their money the old-fashioned way, i.e. fraud.

Please explain to me how an actual Mercedes is worth more with a Chrysler name plate on it than it would be with a Mercedes one?

Or is the vehicle not exactly a Mercedes, but rather a result of applying some of their styling, manufacturing, and business ideas to a lower priced vehicle?

Both. The market and target buyers really determine the price, not the manufacturer.

Reduction of all the sources for major components such as drivetrains, as well as sharing design studios, is a great way to reduce the cost of the vehicle, so vehicle platforms being shared between brands and models is good for all of us, supposedly.

Cites:

You may be right, but the most common complaint seems to be that it consumes much more management time than it should -- so much so that it's damaging to business operations. I wouldn't put much credence in that claim except that _The Economist_ seems to agree, and, with some exceptions, I have a lot of respect for their objectivity.

Haha! Yeah, I used to think something like that when I saw the Smith-Barney commercials.

-- Ed Huntress

Bullshit. It's causing complaints because it's actually catching a hell of a lot of fraud, and folks can't do "business as usual"

For instance, Apple, Verisign, and Monster.com have recently been caught doing things like overstating profits and backdating stock options.

Of course you're going to hear them whinging about Sarbanes-Oxley!

-gc

The only way those "legacy costs" at Ford or GM could be tossed off is under a bankruptcy scenario, unless I'm missing something. The current union could be broken without a bankruptcy, but the obligations incurred in the past would have to be assumed by the new corporation. The biggest effect of the merger between Chrysler and Mercedes so far has been to vaporize stockholder equity.

=============== After all the management blather about making money for the stockholders, how can they have the nerve to complain when they are forced to produce a honest set of books, and then prove these are not cooked?

If their job is not watching the existing corporate/stockholders assets then just what is? If they feel it is too much, they can always quit and get another job (or get fired).