GMC: "We are professional grade"
Mr4701
moaning about how they are going to have to use higher quality material to
make their vehicles lighter so they can meet the 2020 regulations...
"We are going to have to use professional grade materials like aluminum to
meet these standards and we are going to pass the cost on to the consumer."
No wonder many people, besides those dumb enough to invest in American gas
guzzlers (or those men who don't feel like men unless they are cruising
their sweaty assholes around in a monster truck that has to be American
Made), are leaving American made steal gas guzzlers; because they are lied
to by the companies. Not to mention the shi**y machines never change their
look give or take a few curves.
J a c k
What do you know about sweaty assholes?
What kind do you prefer?
Jack
moh...@mailpanda.com
> What do you know about sweaty assholes?
>
> What kind do you prefer?
>
> Jack
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Get your voyeuristic jollies elsewhere pervert.
80 Knight
news:yngkj.83$Wr4.1@trnddc04...
What is going on? Why are so many clue-less morons posting here these days?
If you like the Import cars, that's fine, but why start shitting on the
Domestic groups? Get a life.
Doug Adams
(farm). I am not aware of a Toyota or Nissan that will do what my Duramax
Chevy does! You sound like some geek that sits on his ass behind a keyboard,
without a life and posts B.S. trying to make yourself feel like someone. If
you don't like American cars why don't you move to India. I hear they are
building cars over there now. Take your rice burner and go post on a toyota
newgroup, that way the people who want to help out other people with GM
vehicles don't have to read your B.S.
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
news:yngkj.83$Wr4.1@trnddc04...
Jeff
> GMC's motto is "We are professional grade!," all while complaining and
> moaning about how they are going to have to use higher quality material to
> make their vehicles lighter so they can meet the 2020 regulations...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1551870320080115?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&sp=true
>
> "We are going to have to use professional grade materials like aluminum to
> meet these standards and we are going to pass the cost on to the consumer."
The actual quotes were:
"That cost will have to be passed on to consumers," Lutz, a long-time
vocal critic of federal fuel regulations, said.
and
"We probably have to take a lot of weight out of the vehicles. We will
have to use some premium materials like more aluminum, more magnesium,"
Lutz said. "Which gets you the weight savings but drives the cost up."
> No wonder many people, besides those dumb enough to invest in American gas
You buy a car. You don't invest in a car. An investment is something
that makes you money. While a car is a necessity to get around, it is
not an investment.
> guzzlers (or those men who don't feel like men unless they are cruising
> their sweaty assholes around in a monster truck that has to be American
> Made), are leaving American made steal gas guzzlers; because they are lied
> to by the companies. Not to mention the shi**y machines never change their
> look give or take a few curves.
Actually the quality of many American-made vehicles is quite good.
Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford and Chrysler all make some excellent vehicles in
America.
I would suggest you go to the wikipedia article for a American-made
vehicles that have been around for a while, like the F-150, Dodge Ram or
Chevy C-10/Silverado, Ford Taurus, Chevy Malibu or Dodge Neon & Caliber,
and tell us that the cars and trucks never changed.
While you might not like the cars and trucks, they have changed
mechanically and in their looks, and their quality is, on average, good.
Jeff
>
>
>
>
nonsense
> Many of us need the big vehicles to pull equipment around and actually work
> (farm). I am not aware of a Toyota or Nissan that will do what my Duramax
> Chevy does! You sound like some geek that sits on his ass behind a keyboard,
> without a life and posts B.S. trying to make yourself feel like someone. If
> you don't like American cars why don't you move to India. I hear they are
> building cars over there now. Take your rice burner and go post on a toyota
> newgroup, that way the people who want to help out other people with GM
> vehicles don't have to read your B.S.
I've had to cut back my 2004 Silverado use to 99.9%
off highway use, only for those jobs that nothing
else I currently own can do for me, like snowplowing.
It is not affordable for runs into town any longer or
general usage.
Once I finish paying for the thing (0% interest note
from GMAC.....and now I know why) I'll be replacing
it with some sort of rice burner. I'll buy a couple
of older junkers to take care of the off-road chores.
I don't need to tie up a gas guzzler that cost me
close to $30,000 but is unaffordable for the highway
usage I was doing with it when I bought the thing.
Hell, it costs me well over $3 to run home for lunch
from the fields. That alone is $360 a year here. Brown
bag it is, or take the car.
Fuel prices doubling since I've owned it are mostly
to blame. It is now the equivalent of a truck that
gets 5mpg at the old prices. I'd *never* have bought
it had I foreseen what Uncle Sam has allowed to
happen to us.
Hell no, I am not at all happy with this American steel.
I have enough older working tractors and an almost new
ATV that I don't need a pickup truck for field work.
Trailers are cheap for cartage. And anything will pull
them down the highway.
Jeff
> Many of us need the big vehicles to pull equipment around and actually work
> (farm). I am not aware of a Toyota or Nissan that will do what my Duramax
> Chevy does! You sound like some geek that sits on his ass behind a keyboard,
> without a life and posts B.S. trying to make yourself feel like someone. If
> you don't like American cars why don't you move to India. I hear they are
> building cars over there now. Take your rice burner and go post on a toyota
> newgroup, that way the people who want to help out other people with GM
> vehicles don't have to read your B.S.
And, if he does want to quote and article, he should use the actual
words used. What an ass.
Jeff
Jeff
> Doug Adams wrote:
>
>> Many of us need the big vehicles to pull equipment around and actually
>> work (farm). I am not aware of a Toyota or Nissan that will do what my
>> Duramax Chevy does! You sound like some geek that sits on his ass
>> behind a keyboard, without a life and posts B.S. trying to make
>> yourself feel like someone. If you don't like American cars why don't
>> you move to India. I hear they are building cars over there now. Take
>> your rice burner and go post on a toyota newgroup, that way the people
>> who want to help out other people with GM vehicles don't have to read
>> your B.S.
>
> I've had to cut back my 2004 Silverado use to 99.9%
> off highway use, only for those jobs that nothing
> else I currently own can do for me, like snowplowing.
> It is not affordable for runs into town any longer or
> general usage.
>
> Once I finish paying for the thing (0% interest note
> from GMAC.....and now I know why) I'll be replacing
> it with some sort of rice burner.
Did the vehicle not have the mileage stickers on them when you bought
them? Did GM increase the price of crude oil?
If you think that a Toyota Tundra or similar vehicle get better mileage,
think again.
> I'll buy a couple
> of older junkers to take care of the off-road chores.
> I don't need to tie up a gas guzzler that cost me
> close to $30,000 but is unaffordable for the highway
> usage I was doing with it when I bought the thing.
> Hell, it costs me well over $3 to run home for lunch
> from the fields. That alone is $360 a year here. Brown
> bag it is, or take the car.
>
> Fuel prices doubling since I've owned it are mostly
> to blame. It is now the equivalent of a truck that
> gets 5mpg at the old prices. I'd *never* have bought
> it had I foreseen what Uncle Sam has allowed to
> happen to us.
Gee, Uncle Sam does set the price of oil.
> Hell no, I am not at all happy with this American steel.
The American steel is just fine. The problem is that you don't need it.
> I have enough older working tractors and an almost new
> ATV that I don't need a pickup truck for field work.
> Trailers are cheap for cartage. And anything will pull
> them down the highway.
Good, you've found ways to save fuel already.
Jeff
nonsense
> nonsense wrote:
>
>> Doug Adams wrote:
>>
>>> Many of us need the big vehicles to pull equipment around and
>>> actually work (farm). I am not aware of a Toyota or Nissan that will
>>> do what my Duramax Chevy does! You sound like some geek that sits on
>>> his ass behind a keyboard, without a life and posts B.S. trying to
>>> make yourself feel like someone. If you don't like American cars why
>>> don't you move to India. I hear they are building cars over there
>>> now. Take your rice burner and go post on a toyota newgroup, that way
>>> the people who want to help out other people with GM vehicles don't
>>> have to read your B.S.
>>
>>
>> I've had to cut back my 2004 Silverado use to 99.9%
>> off highway use, only for those jobs that nothing
>> else I currently own can do for me, like snowplowing.
>> It is not affordable for runs into town any longer or
>> general usage.
>>
>> Once I finish paying for the thing (0% interest note
>> from GMAC.....and now I know why) I'll be replacing
>> it with some sort of rice burner.
>
>
> Did the vehicle not have the mileage stickers on them when you bought
> them?
No. The sticker was there with no numbers. Salesmen
always lie.
> Did GM increase the price of crude oil?
Lousy gas mileage is complicit because demand raises
prices.
> If you think that a Toyota Tundra or similar vehicle
> get better mileage, think again.
I'll find something that does.
>> I'll buy a couple
>> of older junkers to take care of the off-road chores.
>> I don't need to tie up a gas guzzler that cost me
>> close to $30,000 but is unaffordable for the highway
>> usage I was doing with it when I bought the thing.
>> Hell, it costs me well over $3 to run home for lunch
>> from the fields. That alone is $360 a year here. Brown
>> bag it is, or take the car.
>>
>> Fuel prices doubling since I've owned it are mostly
>> to blame. It is now the equivalent of a truck that
>> gets 5mpg at the old prices. I'd *never* have bought
>> it had I foreseen what Uncle Sam has allowed to
>> happen to us.
> Gee, Uncle Sam does set the price of oil.
Uncle Sam allowed the merger of oil companies into
a few giants destroying competition. Are you like
20 years old and oblivious to this history?
>> Hell no, I am not at all happy with this American steel.
> The American steel is just fine. The problem is that you don't need it.
The bottom line is whether I am happy with it or not.
Clearly I am not.
>> I have enough older working tractors and an almost new
>> ATV that I don't need a pickup truck for field work.
>> Trailers are cheap for cartage. And anything will pull
>> them down the highway.
> Good, you've found ways to save fuel already.
Better fuel efficiency with a machine that can be retuned
would go far to making me a LOT happier. The fact that I've
had to throw more money into new solutions forms a solid part
of my gripe.
C. E. White
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
news:yngkj.83$Wr4.1@trnddc04...
> moaning about how they are going to have to use higher quality material to
> make their vehicles lighter so they can meet the 2020 regulations...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1551870320080115?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&sp=true
>
> "We are going to have to use professional grade materials like aluminum to
> meet these standards and we are going to pass the cost on to the
> consumer."
I am missing your point here. Go compare the "new" monstrosity Toyota is
selling to a GMC half ton truck. The Turdra gets worse gas mileage and has
had significant design and quality problems. The new Chevy and GMC trucks
that were released at approximately the same time have been almost flawless.
And the "old" F150 still has greater load and towing capacities. Toyota will
need to replace high strength steel with aluminum for exactly the same
reasons as GMC will. Toyota will also have to pass these costs along to
consumers.
> No wonder many people, besides those dumb enough to invest in American gas
> guzzlers (or those men who don't feel like men unless they are cruising
> their sweaty assholes around in a monster truck that has to be American
> Made), are leaving American made steal gas guzzlers; because they are lied
> to by the companies.
Again, what is your point. Toyota has invested billions to build monster
trucks for Americans. So far the result have been second rate, but Toyota is
spending millions more to buy market share with huge rebates and incentives.
> Not to mention the shi**y machines never change their look give or take a
> few curves.
Oh you mean like the Corolla?
Ed
Jeff
<...>
>> Gee, Uncle Sam does set the price of oil.
>
> Uncle Sam allowed the merger of oil companies into
> a few giants destroying competition. Are you like
> 20 years old and oblivious to this history?
We have Valero, ExxonMobile, Citco, LukOil & Getty (one company), BP,
Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Sunoco and
Shell.
These oil companies don't set the price of crude oil, either.
>>> Hell no, I am not at all happy with this American steel.
>
>> The American steel is just fine. The problem is that you don't need it.
>
> The bottom line is whether I am happy with it or not.
> Clearly I am not.
Then you're not. Fortunately, it's not my problem.
>>> I have enough older working tractors and an almost new
>>> ATV that I don't need a pickup truck for field work.
>>> Trailers are cheap for cartage. And anything will pull
>>> them down the highway.
>
>> Good, you've found ways to save fuel already.
>
> Better fuel efficiency with a machine that can be retuned
> would go far to making me a LOT happier. The fact that I've
> had to throw more money into new solutions forms a solid part
> of my gripe.
Too bad. No one makes a machine that lets you switch engines, what is in
the back, the size of the cab, etc., on the fly. I guess the closest we
come is the engines that switch off cylinders for efficiency, the L62
V8-6-4 variable displacement engine that Caddy introduced 28 years ago
(for one year only, though) and others are introducing now. Or a tractor
trailer where you can put the trailer of your choice.
Your ATV and tractors come close, too, but don't have a lot of capacity.
But, then again, you don't need a lot of capacity for a lot of you're doing.
Jeff
C. E. White
"nonsense" <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote in message
news:c9176$479208ff$49e5d7e$69...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>> Did the vehicle not have the mileage stickers on them when you bought
>> them?
>
> No. The sticker was there with no numbers. Salesmen
> always lie.
I am guessing you bought a Silverado HD (HD vehicles aren't required to
havce stickers) - Did you really expect the vehicle to get good mileage? I
fuel economy was imporatant you should have purchased a 4 sylinder Ranger.
....
> Better fuel efficiency with a machine that can be retuned
> would go far to making me a LOT happier. The fact that I've
> had to throw more money into new solutions forms a solid part
> of my gripe.
You can rent trucks for occasional use.
Jeff
> "nonsense" <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote in message
> news:c9176$479208ff$49e5d7e$69...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>>> Did the vehicle not have the mileage stickers on them when you bought
>>> them?
>> No. The sticker was there with no numbers. Salesmen
>> always lie.
>
> I am guessing you bought a Silverado HD (HD vehicles aren't required to
> havce stickers) - Did you really expect the vehicle to get good mileage? I
> fuel economy was imporatant you should have purchased a 4 sylinder Ranger.
Or an ATV, motorcycle or better yet, a mountain bike.
Jeff
JoeSpareBedroom
news:13p43u5...@corp.supernews.com...
I'm not taking sides here, but if you need to rent a vehicle for towing
something, you are out of luck in some states. New York, for instance. You
cannot rent a vehicle to tow a trailer of your own. There are only two
exceptions:
1) U-Haul, and it has to be their "towing device", like the dollies that you
use to haul a car behind their truck.
2) Leased commercial vehicles, like the dump trucks you see hauling
construction equipment on a trailer.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:Yhnkj.11151$LN4.3953@trnddc07...
> Gee, Uncle Sam does set the price of oil.
Well....almost. The government *does* allow oil prices to be set via a
system which is so goofy, it may as well be happening in an OTB betting
parlor, or worse, a poker game in the back room of a mob bar in Brooklyn.
The government could put a stop to this overnight.
Jeff
Gasoline is a commodity. Oil companies are allowed to sell their
gasoline for whatever they want. They can give it away for free. They
can sell for $10 per gallon. The choice is theres. However, market
forces set the price of gasoline. It involves the cost of the crude oil,
the cost of distribution and refining, taxes and what the competitors
are doing.
Yet, this would have no effects on some of the biggest costs of making
gasoline like crude oil, the cost of distributing and refining gasoline
and taxes. Oil companies have a net profit margin of about 10%.
So, as goofy as the market is, it does result in reasonable returns to
the oil companies and reasonable prices for fuels.
If we added the cost of protecting the middle east to the price of
gasoline, the price would go up.
Jeff
JoeSpareBedroom
Jeff, what are your five favorite foods? Never mind boring stuff like milk &
bread. I'm talking about five foods you always want to have in the house.
They're always on the shopping list.
Just play along here for a moment, please.
nonsense
> nonsense wrote:
> <...>
>
>>> Gee, Uncle Sam does set the price of oil.
>>
>>
>> Uncle Sam allowed the merger of oil companies into
>> a few giants destroying competition. Are you like
>> 20 years old and oblivious to this history?
>
>
> We have Valero, ExxonMobile, Citco, LukOil & Getty (one company), BP,
> Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Sunoco and
> Shell.
>
> These oil companies don't set the price of crude oil, either.
You forgot all about Zephyr. They still have some
stations around. Boy, do they ever help establish the
price at the pump. <snicker>
Come back to this discussion when you can tell me how many
gallons of gasoline, and how much in other products, they
get out of a barrel of crude. Refineries are presently half
as many as there were in 1981. Chavez has 6 up for sale.
Even if the raw product doubles in price, the cost of refining
and distribution does not. Have you seen your wages double in
the same time period that fuel prices did? Does the driver who
delivers from the refinery to the gas station see a doubling
in his?
Have electric bills doubled?
Propane prices haven't either.
Need more proof?
Guess what. The oil companies are gouging. Why? Because with
only a few owners it gets easier to price fix. It is past
time to impose a windfall profits tax. I sat in a Chicago
courtroom to hear the opening arguments for a price fixing
case (about a decade back) involving corn products. The
meeting was in the far east. The FBI taped the meeting.
The case was brought in federal court in Chicago. The
US guy is serving 20 years in federal prison. I didn't
follow up on finding out what happened to the rest of
the participants. Corn products! Why can't we this done
for fuel?
Oops. That might affect Bush and Bushdaddy income. Nope,
it can't get done in today's Washington. Didn't you know
that all roads lead to Rome? As a federal attorney just
drop a hint anywhere that you're thinking about looking
into fuel prices and be replaced "at the pleasure of the
president" the next day.
Jeff
<...>
> Jeff, what are your five favorite foods? Never mind boring stuff like milk &
> bread. I'm talking about five foods you always want to have in the house.
> They're always on the shopping list.
>
> Just play along here for a moment, please.
Actually, I don't eat much bread. And I don't drink much milk.
Humus
Salad
Fried Chicken.
And my favoriate fruits:
Bell peppers
Bananas
nonsense
> Yet, this would have no effects on some of the biggest costs of making
> gasoline like crude oil, the cost of distributing and refining gasoline
> and taxes. Oil companies have a net profit margin of about 10%.
You must be talking about gas stations, not oil companies.
But let's assume for a moment that you're right. An oil
company turns over its product how many times a year?
Look at supermarkets. The big guys work on 1% over their
cost for groceries. They turn that over typically 50 times
a year. Their return on investment (ROI) is fantastic!
Exxon made the best profit it ever reported back when gasoline
was about $1.80 a gallon. With not much else, other than
the crude price, changing, what is their net profit margin
when the price of gasoline is at about $3.30 as it is where I
live right now?
Things don't scale up the way you seem to think they do. What
has increased is oil company profits. I think they hired some
old time Western Electric accountants. Did you know that over
decades WECo managed to conceal the actual cost of manufacturing
the model 500 plain old telephone from the government so they
could charge outrageous rent for the thing to everyone in the
US that had telephone service?
We have that same problem today with gasoline. Have oil company
CEO bonuses hit the billion dollar mark yet? Won't be long now!
> So, as goofy as the market is, it does result in reasonable returns to
> the oil companies and reasonable prices for fuels.
Reasonable nuttin!
> If we added the cost of protecting the middle east to the price of
> gasoline, the price would go up.
Protect it from what?
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> nonsense wrote:
>> <...>
>>
>>>> Gee, Uncle Sam does set the price of oil.
>>>
>>>
>>> Uncle Sam allowed the merger of oil companies into
>>> a few giants destroying competition. Are you like
>>> 20 years old and oblivious to this history?
>>
>>
>> We have Valero, ExxonMobile, Citco, LukOil & Getty (one company), BP,
>> Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Sunoco
>> and Shell.
>>
>> These oil companies don't set the price of crude oil, either.
>
> You forgot all about Zephyr. They still have some
> stations around. Boy, do they ever help establish the
> price at the pump. <snicker>
There are others, like Score. I also missed Texaco & Gulf.
> Come back to this discussion when you can tell me how many
> gallons of gasoline, and how much in other products, they
> get out of a barrel of crude. Refineries are presently half
> as many as there were in 1981. Chavez has 6 up for sale.
They get close to 50 gallons from a 42 gallon barrel of oil. The
difference is from additives, like ethanol.
> Even if the raw product doubles in price, the cost of refining
> and distribution does not.
It does go up some, because, the process does require energy.
> Have you seen your wages double in
> the same time period that fuel prices did? Does the driver who
> delivers from the refinery to the gas station see a doubling
> in his?
While the price of gasoline and other energy sources has gone up, the
prices of many other things has not.
> Have electric bills doubled?
>
> Propane prices haven't either.
>
> Need more proof?
>
> Guess what. The oil companies are gouging.
If a barrel of oil costs $90 and the oil companies get 50 gallons out of
it, then it costs about $1.80 for the crude oil. The additives also cost
money.
Taxes are about $0.40 per gallon. Where I live, they are close to $0.33
per gallon. So, $1.80 for oil + $0.33 for taxes is $2.13. The gas sells
for $2.89. So that leaves $0.74 for profit, delivery, cost of sales at
the gas station, and refining.
Here is a breakdown of the costs of gasoline:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
> Why? Because with
> only a few owners it gets easier to price fix.
I count 13 major oil companies in the US.
> It is past
> time to impose a windfall profits tax.
What windfall profits? Oil companies have an average profit margin of
10%, which is similar to the profit margins of utilities.
> I sat in a Chicago
> courtroom to hear the opening arguments for a price fixing
> case (about a decade back) involving corn products. The
> meeting was in the far east. The FBI taped the meeting.
> The case was brought in federal court in Chicago. The
> US guy is serving 20 years in federal prison. I didn't
> follow up on finding out what happened to the rest of
> the participants. Corn products! Why can't we this done
> for fuel?
First, you have to establish that price fixing is occurring.
> Oops. That might affect Bush and Bushdaddy income. Nope,
> it can't get done in today's Washington. Didn't you know
> that all roads lead to Rome? As a federal attorney just
> drop a hint anywhere that you're thinking about looking
> into fuel prices and be replaced "at the pleasure of the
> president" the next day.
And Gore had ties to Occidental Petroleum. But that doesn't mean that
there is price-fixing.
Jeff
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> Yet, this would have no effects on some of the biggest costs of making
>> gasoline like crude oil, the cost of distributing and refining
>> gasoline and taxes. Oil companies have a net profit margin of about 10%.
>
> You must be talking about gas stations, not oil companies.
The operating margins of the oil companies have 10.45%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=XOM
> But let's assume for a moment that you're right. An oil
> company turns over its product how many times a year?
>
> Look at supermarkets. The big guys work on 1% over their
> cost for groceries. They turn that over typically 50 times
> a year. Their return on investment (ROI) is fantastic!
Not really. Let's say a grocer store sells $10,000,000 a year. It costs
the grocery store $9,000,000, so it has a $1,000,000 a year gross
profit. But, it might cost $100,000 a year in costs for the building
(rent or the cost of paying the mortgage), $50,000 a year in electricity
for lights, freezers, air conditioning, etc., and $500,000 in labor.
That's a net profit of $350,000 or a net profit margin of 3.5%.
The return on investment is different. Let's say it costs $10,000 to
start the grocery store. The return on investment is about $350,000 /
$10,000 or 3500%. Let's say it costs around $5,000,000 to start a
grocery store, with the cost of buying the shelves, the building, the
air conditioning, the land (don't forget the big parking lot), etc. Then
that return on investment is $350,000 / $5,000,000, the return on
investment is 7%.
> Exxon made the best profit it ever reported back when gasoline
> was about $1.80 a gallon. With not much else, other than
> the crude price, changing, what is their net profit margin
> when the price of gasoline is at about $3.30 as it is where I
> live right now?
Gee, I don't know. Where I live, it costs $0.74 more for gas, which is
the price of refining, the additives, distribution, and the cost of
selling (the gross profit the gas station makes). I don't where you
live. If you live in CA, it costs $2.30 for crude oil and taxes. The
cost of refining is more expensive, because CA has specific
requirements. Anyway, the difference in price (pump price - crude oil
price and taxes), around $1.00 ($0.42 is the average tax), includes the
costs of delivery of the oil to the refinery, the cost of refining, the
cost of delivery to the gas station and the gross profit made by the gas
station.
How much of that $1.00 or so is net profit, I don't know. But oil
companies have an average net profit of about 10%, so I would guess
maybe $0.28.
> Things don't scale up the way you seem to think they do.
Speak for yourself. You seem to think that a store that sells lots of
groceries has a huge profit margin because their stock turns over every
week. But they're only making 1% (your value). Geez.
> What
> has increased is oil company profits. I think they hired some
> old time Western Electric accountants. Did you know that over
> decades WECo managed to conceal the actual cost of manufacturing
> the model 500 plain old telephone from the government so they
> could charge outrageous rent for the thing to everyone in the
> US that had telephone service?
Yet the profit margin has not increased markedly. The profit margins oil
companies make are right in line with the ones the utilities make.
> We have that same problem today with gasoline. Have oil company
> CEO bonuses hit the billion dollar mark yet? Won't be long now!
The compensation (including stock and stock options) that oil company
CEOs get is in the neighborhood of $50M. That's only a small proportion
of the oil company's profits.
>> So, as goofy as the market is, it does result in reasonable returns to
>> the oil companies and reasonable prices for fuels.
>
> Reasonable nuttin!
Well why don't you analyze the numbers and tell us what are reasonable
returns for the oil companies to make? All I hear are stupid comments
about "record profits" and such. Why don't tell us what oil companies
should be making?
And, don't forget, a lot of oil companies are multinational companies
(like ExxonMobil) and make most of their sales and profits outside the US).
>> If we added the cost of protecting the middle east to the price of
>> gasoline, the price would go up.
>
> Protect it from what?
Why not ask Bush why we have soldiers in Iraq and so many ships
protecting the mideast.
JoeSpareBedroom
Sounds like my refrigerator.
OK, let's say I somehow manage to get the NY Mercantile Exchange to add
chickpeas to their list of games. Suddenly, the price of chickpeas could be
all over the place, based on guesses from idiots whose trades are based on
things like this:
- "Duh...drool....it's used for humus which comes from the Middle East so
chickpeas must come from the Middle East and the Iranians just did that
nasty thing to our Navy".
- "Duh....drool...I got no idea where most chickpeas are grown but it's been
really dry where I live and that must mean something."
- "Duh....drool...my lawn's gettin' massacred by grubs and I bet chickpea
farmers are having problems, too".
One more thing: The people who are trading the price of chickpeas all over
the place are not necessarily farmers or people who work in the food
industry. Like investors who trade in oil futures, they can be anyone who
has enough money to play. They may not even be gardeners and have the
slightest clue about what affects vegetables.
So, the $2.99 16 oz container of Tribe humus goes to $4.00 by April, then
back to $2.75 if the president says something nice about the economy.
Earthquakes in Iran? The price goes up to $5.00, even though none of the
ingredients come from Iran. Surge working in Iraq? Price goes to $3.50, and
back up to $4.00 if there's a frost in Florida, even though none of the
ingredients come from Florida except the lemon juice, which Tribe buys in
concentrate form anyway.
Would this be OK with you, having the price of one of your favorite foods
jerked around by gamblers, just for fun?
clareatsnyder.on.ca
wrote:
>
>I count 13 major oil companies in the US.
>
And exactly how many of them own refinery capacity in the US of A?????
And how many of THEM own a refinery in every region where they sell
fuel?? (Hint - look up capacity sharing and production
rationalization)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
clareatsnyder.on.ca
wrote:
>
>While you might not like the cars and trucks, they have changed
>mechanically and in their looks, and their quality is, on average, good.
>
Which means that some ar fantastic, some are dismall, and the rest
fall somewhere in between.
>Jeff
Mike hunt
less than the Siverado and the F150 LOL
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
news:yngkj.83$Wr4.1@trnddc04...
> GMC's motto is "We are professional grade!," all while complaining and
> moaning about how they are going to have to use higher quality material to
> make their vehicles lighter so they can meet the 2020 regulations...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1551870320080115?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&sp=true
>
> "We are going to have to use professional grade materials like aluminum to
> meet these standards and we are going to pass the cost on to the
> consumer."
>
Jeff Strickland
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
news:yngkj.83$Wr4.1@trnddc04...
> GMC's motto is "We are professional grade!," all while complaining and
> moaning about how they are going to have to use higher quality material to
> make their vehicles lighter so they can meet the 2020 regulations...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1551870320080115?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&sp=true
>
> "We are going to have to use professional grade materials like aluminum to
> meet these standards and we are going to pass the cost on to the
> consumer."
>
> No wonder many people, besides those dumb enough to invest in American gas
> guzzlers (or those men who don't feel like men unless they are cruising
> their sweaty assholes around in a monster truck that has to be American
> Made), are leaving American made steal gas guzzlers; because they are lied
> to by the companies. Not to mention the shi**y machines never change their
Mr4701
"80 Knight" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5b6dnS4SL-vaMAza...@giganews.com...
> What is going on? Why are so many clue-less morons posting here these
> days? If you like the Import cars, that's fine, but why start shitting on
> the Domestic groups? Get a life.
I want American car companies to succeed not secede. You think its not good
for consumers to be critical? That's how you ended up with shitty products
in the first place.
Mike hunt
buying stock on the market. Even home owners in the northeast are doing so
with heating oil. Last year those that did so, lost money when the price
went down
Those that buy futures are gambling the price of crude will go up. However
curretly those that gamble at $90 a barrel are losing their shirts since
currently crude is selling under $80 a barrel. There is nothing the US or
any government can do about somebody buying stock or futures.
One thing our governmsnt can do is allow for drilling of our own oil in
available oil fields. Russia is using Cuba to drill billions of gallons
off our shores in the Gulf, as is Mexico, Canada drilling near Alaska while
our politicos sit with their thuimbs up our asses
As to compatiion, gasolne is one of the most competative products the
consumer buys. If you think not, just look at all of the vehicles at the
pumps where it is one cent cheaper
Our biggest proplem with energy in the US are our stupid overly restrictive
enviroment laws that do not allow us to drill for oil, build or expand
refineries, transport and store gas and oil or build oil pipe lines,
electric trasmission lines or dig more of our 200 year supply of coal that
can be convert to oil
We better realzie that fact soon since there is not a single or combination
of alternate fuels on the horizon that car replace even 20% of the oil we
use today, let 100%.
Emagine what the environuts will do if we ever want to build a nationwide
2500 PSI hydrogen distribution system LOL
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DAokj.2337$Sa1....@news02.roc.ny...
Jeff
I hate to tell it to you, but the price of fruits and vegetables has
been jerked around for years, too.
Jeff
clareatsnyder.on.ca
<el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <1200741...@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,
> "Doug Adams" <adam...@wcnet.org> wrote:
>
>> I am not aware of a Toyota or Nissan that will do what my Duramax
>> Chevy does!
>
>Just because you're "not aware" doesn't mean such a vehicle doesn't
>exist.
>
>How's that sand taste? Good?
Trucks like the Hino, Dyna and HiAce series seen elsewhere in the
word. Only the Hino is seen here, and it IS a Toyota.
They are building them in Woodstock Ontario now (or will be shortly)
Nissan also builds some pretty credibale intermediate or "light heavy"
trucks.
Mitsubishi/Fuso too.
Not to mention the GM/Isuzu
Mike hunt
of gasoline, the price would go up? ;)
"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VKokj.11160$LN4.5661@trnddc07...
Jeff
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:39:36 GMT, Jeff <kidsd...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> I count 13 major oil companies in the US.
>>
> And exactly how many of them own refinery capacity in the US of A?????
> And how many of THEM own a refinery in every region where they sell
> fuel?? (Hint - look up capacity sharing and production
> rationalization)
Even where they do not have refineries, they still compete when it comes
to selling gasoline to consumers. And companies that buy from one
refinery and also tend to sell to the oil company they buy from. Plus,
oil and gasoline and piped across the country and refined gasoline
reaches the US by pipeline and boat.
Jeff
Jeff
No, I don't mean that all.
And if I did mean it, I would use complete and intelligible sentences.
Jeff
JoeSpareBedroom
Does that mean it's OK for amateurs like you and I to jerk the prices
around, just for fun, if we have the money to play?
Jeff
> For once you are almost correct, oil futures are indeed a gamble, just like
> buying stock on the market. Even home owners in the northeast are doing so
> with heating oil. Last year those that did so, lost money when the price
> went down
>
> Those that buy futures are gambling the price of crude will go up. However
> curretly those that gamble at $90 a barrel are losing their shirts since
> currently crude is selling under $80 a barrel. There is nothing the US or
> any government can do about somebody buying stock or futures.
That's amazing! The price of crude oil dropped $10 overnight. Thanks for
letting us know.
Just yesterday, it was trading at just over $90.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Oil-Prices.html?scp=1&sq=crude+oil+price
> One thing our governmsnt can do is allow for drilling of our own oil in
> available oil fields. Russia is using Cuba to drill billions of gallons
> off our shores in the Gulf, as is Mexico, Canada drilling near Alaska while
> our politicos sit with their thuimbs up our asses
One thing you can do is get a spell checker.
Then you can write your congressperson and senator.
> As to compatiion, gasolne is one of the most competative products the
> consumer buys. If you think not, just look at all of the vehicles at the
> pumps where it is one cent cheaper
>
> Our biggest proplem with energy in the US are our stupid overly restrictive
> enviroment laws that do not allow us to drill for oil, build or expand
> refineries, transport and store gas and oil or build oil pipe lines,
> electric trasmission lines or dig more of our 200 year supply of coal that
> can be convert to oil
Gee, without the environment, we wouldn't have much left.
Besides, another problem that even President Bush talks about is
greenhouse heating. He knows that this is a problem for future generations.
> We better realzie that fact soon since there is not a single or combination
> of alternate fuels on the horizon that car replace even 20% of the oil we
> use today, let 100%.
One thing that we can do is become more efficient. That is why Congress
passed the new CAFE regulations.
> Emagine what the environuts will do if we ever want to build a nationwide
> 2500 PSI hydrogen distribution system LOL
I am not sure what "Emagine" means.
Jeff
Mike hunt
traided in on domestic?
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
news:zSqkj.10702$9t4.10024@trnddc08...
Mike hunt
"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3wrkj.11205$LN4.7540@trnddc07...
Jeff
> You are refering to futures, not current supplies
The price for crude oil for the week ending 1/11 was over $90.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm
I am referring to current prices.
Jeff
Edwin Pawlowski
<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
>
> Trucks like the Hino, Dyna and HiAce series seen elsewhere in the
> word. Only the Hino is seen here, and it IS a Toyota.
One of my suppliers bought a Hino. In the first year of ownership, it spend
over 6 months in the shop, mostly waiting for parts.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> No wonder many people, besides those dumb enough to invest in American
>> gas guzzlers (or those men who don't feel like men unless they are
>> cruising their sweaty assholes around in a monster truck that has to be
>> American Made), are leaving American made steal gas guzzlers; because
>> they are lied to by the companies.
>
> Again, what is your point. Toyota has invested billions to build monster
> trucks for Americans. So far the result have been second rate, but Toyota
> is spending millions more to buy market share with huge rebates and
> incentives.
You know, I can't understand this.
Toyota built their reputation here in the US by selling small, quality
fuel-efficient vehicles. Has the American consumer changed that much? I
guess.
I have to admit, the Mazda has roll-down windows, and my Subaru has power
windows, the Mazda has a 5-speed and the Subaru has a 3-speed auto (and I
*MEAN* 3-speed! No lockup, no OD).
I like driving the Subaru...even more when I'm doing my 'paper route'. The
AT and the power windows make driving from stop to stop much easier.
I have 'retired' the Mazda to my day job repairing Dells. Guess what? I
don't mind the roll-down windows or the 5 speed (except in Amherst/UMass
when there is a lot of traffic). It's a great car and does everything I
want. The only thing I do to my cars is swap the radios, since I can get
better sound out of a $125 aftermarket than a $350 stock unit.
For people who want leather and power windows and ATs etc, etc, fine.
Know what I'd like? I'd like another simple little car like my '74 Corolla
with the 'map light' in the dash that also functioned as the dashboard
illumination. Starts, runs, steers and stops. What else do you need?
Where can I get a Tata?
Ronald Thompson
East doesn't even make into the top five suppliers.
Ron
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> Fuel prices doubling since I've owned it are mostly to blame. It is now
> the equivalent of a truck that gets 5mpg at the old prices. I'd *never*
> have bought it had I foreseen what Uncle Sam has allowed to happen to us.
While I agree with the rest of your post, I take a bit of exception to
this. "What Uncle Sam has allowed to happen to us"?
US didn't do anything. We did it to ourselves. What really galls me is
when the price of gas goes up, and NBC news does a Man in the Street thing
with someone complaining about gas prices, and invariably it's someone
tanking up his Excursion!
OK, some people NEED an SUV. But the majority of them on the road (GMC,
Ford, as well as Toyota, Nissan etc) are just not necessary! "I want to
feel safe." Ok, don't bitch about gas prices! (Not you...you and Doug
Adams sound like you need big vehicles). The majority of the people who
buy SUVs would probably do just as well with a Subaru Outback (for the
AWD) or a Dodge Caravan (for the room).
I have had three Chrysler minivans, and am looking for another one. The
first was a short wheelbase Caravan, with trwo kids, a dog, and a Mother
In Law. No Problem! With the FWD and snow tires, the only thing that kept
us home was storms we shouldn't have been driving in anyway. The second
was given to me 10 years later, also a '94, Grand Voyager with 229,000
miles. I drove it for 10,000 miles and then gave it back to the guy who
gave it to me 'cause he missed it so much. Three weeks later I replaced it
with exactly the same vehicle, but this time with AWD.
But, we got 29 MPG average with the first one, and I got 27 MPG average
with the second, and 25 with the third. To me 25 MPG overall isn't bad for
a large people mover with AWD.
Not necessarily pointing the finger at you, but anyone who cries about gas
prices while driving much more vehicle than they *need* should just shut
up and park it, or buy something they can afford to drive and save the Gas
Guzzler for times when it is really needed, like you are suggesting.
Hachiroku ハチロク
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Yhnkj.11151$LN4.3953@trnddc07...
>
>> Gee, Uncle Sam does set the price of oil.
>
>
> Well....almost. The government *does* allow oil prices to be set via a
> system which is so goofy, it may as well be happening in an OTB betting
> parlor, or worse, a poker game in the back room of a mob bar in Brooklyn.
> The government could put a stop to this overnight.
OMG...I agree with JSB...<THUD>!!!
Yup...look at that yahoo that sent the price over $100/BBL, just because
he could...
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> Emagine what the environuts will do if we ever want to build a nationwide
> 2500 PSI hydrogen distribution system LOL
But the environuts WANT hydrogen!
That is, until they put the high-pressure pipe in their town, like the
k00ks in my area that want wind power...just somewhere else...
COVEs: Citizens Opposed to Virtually Everything...
Jeff
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:19:44 -0500, Mike hunt wrote:
>
>> Emagine what the environuts will do if we ever want to build a nationwide
>> 2500 PSI hydrogen distribution system LOL
>
> But the environuts WANT hydrogen!
Why would they want hydrogen? Making hydrogen takes energy and make CO2
(if it comes from methane).
Mr4701
"Mike hunt" <mikeh...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:BZKdnfEK9L0R1A_a...@ptd.net...
> Reelly? If that is the case why does one see so many import brands being
> traided in on domestic?
Facts are American Autos do not live up to expectations...
Mr4701
"Doug Adams" <adam...@wcnet.org> wrote in message
news:1200741...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> Many of us need the big vehicles to pull equipment around and actually
> work (farm). I am not aware of a Toyota or Nissan that will do what my
> Duramax Chevy does! You sound like some geek that sits on his ass behind a
> keyboard, without a life and posts B.S. trying to make yourself feel like
> someone. If you don't like American cars why don't you move to India. I
> hear they are building cars over there now. Take your rice burner and go
> post on a toyota newgroup, that way the people who want to help out other
> people with GM vehicles don't have to read your B.S.
Why would I move to India or out of the country just because I do not like
American cars? I just buy imports like most everyone else.
Mr4701
I am glad to hear someone else is concerned about it. I just found the irony
in GMC's motto... We are professional grade when they realyl are not. In
fact they are cheap and making a pretty penny off trying to get people to
flex their nuts.
Mr4701
> You buy a car. You don't invest in a car. An investment is something that
> makes you money. While a car is a necessity to get around, it is not an
> investment.
I would challenge that. You very much do invest in a car and hope it gives
you back more than you put into it.
> I would suggest you go to the wikipedia article for a American-made
> vehicles that have been around for a while, like the F-150, Dodge Ram or
> Chevy C-10/Silverado, Ford Taurus, Chevy Malibu or Dodge Neon & Caliber,
> and tell us that the cars and trucks never changed.
The Ford and Chevy truck models sell like they do because of pride and
testosterone (minus work truck fleets).
> While you might not like the cars and trucks, they have changed
> mechanically and in their looks, and their quality is, on average, good.
Tell that to those trying to get a good return when they put their cars up
for sale...
Mr4701
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:13p436j...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>> GMC's motto is "We are professional grade!," all while complaining and
>> moaning about how they are going to have to use higher quality material
>> to make their vehicles lighter so they can meet the 2020 regulations...
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1551870320080115?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&sp=true
>>
>> "We are going to have to use professional grade materials like aluminum
>> to meet these standards and we are going to pass the cost on to the
>> consumer."
>
> selling to a GMC half ton truck. The Turdra gets worse gas mileage and has
> had significant design and quality problems. The new Chevy and GMC trucks
> that were released at approximately the same time have been almost
> flawless. And the "old" F150 still has greater load and towing capacities.
> Toyota will need to replace high strength steel with aluminum for exactly
> the same reasons as GMC will. Toyota will also have to pass these costs
> along to consumers.'
Toyota does not put all their stock in SUV's... their main concern is their
car fleet.
> Again, what is your point. Toyota has invested billions to build monster
> trucks for Americans.
Toyota has tried to get its foot in the market, but is realizing the
American Pride issues with selling trucks.
Mr4701
> Really? Aparently you are not aware that the fuel mileage with a Tundra
> is less than the Siverado and the F150 LOL
The Tundra is selling like hot cakes huh?
clareatsnyder.on.ca
Just as a point of clarification - India has been building card for
decades. The Tata is not the first.
nonsense
> nonsense wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> nonsense wrote:
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>> Gee, Uncle Sam does set the price of oil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a few giants destroying competition. Are you like
>>>> 20 years old and oblivious to this history?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have Valero, ExxonMobile, Citco, LukOil & Getty (one company), BP,
>>> Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Sunoco
>>> and Shell.
>>>
>>> These oil companies don't set the price of crude oil, either.
>>
>>
>> You forgot all about Zephyr. They still have some
>> stations around. Boy, do they ever help establish the
>> price at the pump. <snicker>
>
>
> There are others, like Score. I also missed Texaco & Gulf.
All those little names mean nothing.
>> Come back to this discussion when you can tell me how many
>> gallons of gasoline, and how much in other products, they
>> get out of a barrel of crude. Refineries are presently half
>> as many as there were in 1981. Chavez has 6 up for sale.
> They get close to 50 gallons from a 42 gallon barrel of oil. The
> difference is from additives, like ethanol.
Now how many other products do they get out of the
same barrel? Consider what crude oil is.
>> Even if the raw product doubles in price, the cost of refining
>> and distribution does not.
> It does go up some, because, the process does require energy.
>> Have you seen your wages double in
>> the same time period that fuel prices did? Does the driver who
>> delivers from the refinery to the gas station see a doubling
>> in his?
> While the price of gasoline and other energy sources has gone up, the
> prices of many other things has not.
>> Have electric bills doubled?
>>
>> Propane prices haven't either.
>>
>> Need more proof?
>>
>> Guess what. The oil companies are gouging.
> If a barrel of oil costs $90 and the oil companies get 50 gallons out of
> it, then it costs about $1.80 for the crude oil. The additives also cost
> money.
And there are a lot of other products they get out of
that same barrel.
> Taxes are about $0.40 per gallon. Where I live, they are close to $0.33
> per gallon. So, $1.80 for oil + $0.33 for taxes is $2.13. The gas sells
> for $2.89. So that leaves $0.74 for profit, delivery, cost of sales at
> the gas station, and refining.
> Here is a breakdown of the costs of gasoline:
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
The numbers are rigged. They don't show anything
for profit. 100% is expense according to their
examples.
>> Why? Because with
>> only a few owners it gets easier to price fix.
> I count 13 major oil companies in the US.
That's a small number. How many own refineries?
>> It is past
>> time to impose a windfall profits tax.
> What windfall profits? Oil companies have an average profit margin of
> 10%, which is similar to the profit margins of utilities.
Bwahahaha. You're falling for their propaganda.
>> I sat in a Chicago
>> courtroom to hear the opening arguments for a price fixing
>> case (about a decade back) involving corn products. The
>> meeting was in the far east. The FBI taped the meeting.
>> The case was brought in federal court in Chicago. The
>> US guy is serving 20 years in federal prison. I didn't
>> follow up on finding out what happened to the rest of
>> the participants. Corn products! Why can't we this done
>> for fuel?
> First, you have to establish that price fixing is occurring.
>> Oops. That might affect Bush and Bushdaddy income. Nope,
>> it can't get done in today's Washington. Didn't you know
>> that all roads lead to Rome? As a federal attorney just
>> drop a hint anywhere that you're thinking about looking
>> into fuel prices and be replaced "at the pleasure of the
>> president" the next day.
> And Gore had ties to Occidental Petroleum. But that doesn't mean that
> there is price-fixing.
Funny how the cost out the gate at all the refineries is
the same whether it is US produced oil, or Canadian, or
brought to the US from the middle east by ship, another
expense not accounted for in your example.
Google for the terms lying and statistics. There are a
number of very good books on the subject.
http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/LieStat/
Web page gives you a sort of an introduction to what's going
on when they simply fool the reader. What's worse is when
they downright lie.
nonsense
> nonsense wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>> Yet, this would have no effects on some of the biggest costs of
>>> making gasoline like crude oil, the cost of distributing and refining
>>> gasoline and taxes. Oil companies have a net profit margin of about 10%.
>> You must be talking about gas stations, not oil companies.
> The operating margins of the oil companies have 10.45%.
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=XOM
>> But let's assume for a moment that you're right. An oil
>> company turns over its product how many times a year?
>> Look at supermarkets. The big guys work on 1% over their
>> cost for groceries. They turn that over typically 50 times
>> a year. Their return on investment (ROI) is fantastic!
> Not really. Let's say a grocer store sells $10,000,000 a year. It costs
> the grocery store $9,000,000, so it has a $1,000,000 a year gross
> profit.
Sorry, you're naive.
Lets make these numbers a little smaller for the sake of
calculation.
A grocer that sells 10K a year can't sit on the merchandise
for the year. He spends 9K but only 9000/52 as his outlay.
That's $173 invested and resold every week. His profit
is $1000 on an investment of $173 which is an ROI of
approximately 578% when annualized if we don't consider
his other expenses.
> But, it might cost $100,000 a year in costs for the building
> (rent or the cost of paying the mortgage), $50,000 a year in electricity
> for lights, freezers, air conditioning, etc., and $500,000 in labor.
> That's a net profit of $350,000 or a net profit margin of 3.5%.
Now multiply the numbers in my example above, add in your
petty expenses, and see what you come up with. Your mistake
is in thinking that the merchandise only gets sold once a
year when in fact it is sold close to 50 times in real life.
> The return on investment is different. Let's say it costs $10,000 to
> start the grocery store. The return on investment is about $350,000 /
> $10,000 or 3500%. Let's say it costs around $5,000,000 to start a
> grocery store, with the cost of buying the shelves, the building, the
> air conditioning, the land (don't forget the big parking lot), etc. Then
> that return on investment is $350,000 / $5,000,000, the return on
> investment is 7%.
Same error repeated.
>> Exxon made the best profit it ever reported back when gasoline
>> was about $1.80 a gallon. With not much else, other than
>> the crude price, changing, what is their net profit margin
>> when the price of gasoline is at about $3.30 as it is where I
>> live right now?
> Gee, I don't know. Where I live, it costs $0.74 more for gas, which is
> the price of refining, the additives, distribution, and the cost of
> selling (the gross profit the gas station makes). I don't where you
> live. If you live in CA, it costs $2.30 for crude oil and taxes. The
> cost of refining is more expensive, because CA has specific
> requirements. Anyway, the difference in price (pump price - crude oil
> price and taxes), around $1.00 ($0.42 is the average tax), includes the
> costs of delivery of the oil to the refinery, the cost of refining, the
> cost of delivery to the gas station and the gross profit made by the gas
> station.
> How much of that $1.00 or so is net profit, I don't know. But oil
> companies have an average net profit of about 10%, so I would guess
> maybe $0.28.
>
>> Things don't scale up the way you seem to think they do.
>
>
> Speak for yourself. You seem to think that a store that sells lots of
> groceries has a huge profit margin because their stock turns over every
> week. But they're only making 1% (your value). Geez.
That 1% a week turns out to 52% annually. Have you taken freshman
algebra yet? Word problems? I don't mean to be insulting, but if
you can't figure out what 1% markup means when multiplied by
selling the product 50 times a year then the rest of this discussion
won't get us anywhere.
80 Knight
>> trucks for Americans.
>
> Toyota has tried to get its foot in the market, but is realizing the
> American Pride issues with selling trucks.
"American Pride issues"? Don't you mean Toyota builds shitty trucks?
nonsense
In the "good old days" Chrysler used to brag about how
well engineered their vehicles were. They eventually
dropped the ads when people discovered that great
engineering didn't result in a very good product.
doug
difference is from additives, like ethanol.
WTF are you talking about?? Actually, the volume of gasline produced per
barrel is closer to 21 gallons.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html
Also remember that this "mix" can be - and is - adjusted according to the
seasons. More heating oil can be extracted in winter months, lowering the
gasoline yield.
"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cJpkj.11179$LN4.5235@trnddc07...
> nonsense wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> nonsense wrote:
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>> Gee, Uncle Sam does set the price of oil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uncle Sam allowed the merger of oil companies into
>>>> a few giants destroying competition. Are you like
>>>> 20 years old and oblivious to this history?
>>>
>>>
>>> We have Valero, ExxonMobile, Citco, LukOil & Getty (one company), BP,
>>> Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Sunoco and
>>> Shell.
>>>
>>> These oil companies don't set the price of crude oil, either.
>>
>> You forgot all about Zephyr. They still have some
>> stations around. Boy, do they ever help establish the
>> price at the pump. <snicker>
>
> There are others, like Score. I also missed Texaco & Gulf.
>
>> Come back to this discussion when you can tell me how many
>> gallons of gasoline, and how much in other products, they
>> get out of a barrel of crude. Refineries are presently half
>> as many as there were in 1981. Chavez has 6 up for sale.
>
> They get close to 50 gallons from a 42 gallon barrel of oil. The
> difference is from additives, like ethanol.
>
>> Even if the raw product doubles in price, the cost of refining
>> and distribution does not.
>
> It does go up some, because, the process does require energy.
>
>> Have you seen your wages double in
>> the same time period that fuel prices did? Does the driver who
>> delivers from the refinery to the gas station see a doubling
>> in his?
>
> While the price of gasoline and other energy sources has gone up, the
> prices of many other things has not.
>
>> Have electric bills doubled?
>>
>> Propane prices haven't either.
>>
>> Need more proof?
>>
>> Guess what. The oil companies are gouging.
>
> If a barrel of oil costs $90 and the oil companies get 50 gallons out of
> it, then it costs about $1.80 for the crude oil. The additives also cost
> money.
>
> Taxes are about $0.40 per gallon. Where I live, they are close to $0.33
> per gallon. So, $1.80 for oil + $0.33 for taxes is $2.13. The gas sells
> for $2.89. So that leaves $0.74 for profit, delivery, cost of sales at the
> gas station, and refining.
>
> Here is a breakdown of the costs of gasoline:
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
>
>> Why? Because with
>> only a few owners it gets easier to price fix.
>
> I count 13 major oil companies in the US.
>
>> It is past
>> time to impose a windfall profits tax.
>
> What windfall profits? Oil companies have an average profit margin of 10%,
> which is similar to the profit margins of utilities.
>
>> I sat in a Chicago
>> courtroom to hear the opening arguments for a price fixing
>> case (about a decade back) involving corn products. The
>> meeting was in the far east. The FBI taped the meeting.
>> The case was brought in federal court in Chicago. The
>> US guy is serving 20 years in federal prison. I didn't
>> follow up on finding out what happened to the rest of
>> the participants. Corn products! Why can't we this done
>> for fuel?
>
> First, you have to establish that price fixing is occurring.
>
>> Oops. That might affect Bush and Bushdaddy income. Nope,
>> it can't get done in today's Washington. Didn't you know
>> that all roads lead to Rome? As a federal attorney just
>> drop a hint anywhere that you're thinking about looking
>> into fuel prices and be replaced "at the pleasure of the
>> president" the next day.
>
> And Gore had ties to Occidental Petroleum. But that doesn't mean that
> there is price-fixing.
>
> Jeff
Whitelightning
"nonsense" <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote in message
news:aa5bb$479220b5$49e5d7e$74...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
> Have electric bills doubled?
>
> Propane prices haven't either.
>
> Need more proof?
Price of a kilawatt hour has risen from 7.77 cents 10 yearsd ago to 11.33
on average in Florida
Between January of 1995 and January of 2007 Propane prices have more than
doubled from $1.27 a gallon in Oct. of 1990 to $3.39 a gallon today..
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/whoreus4w.htm
The price of propane is very dependent on the price of crude since it is a
by-product of the refining process And it is having an effect on many
businesses. I attend a propane gas association meeting with my father once
in a while and it has slowed the demand for pool and spa heaters as well as
gen sets in the retail market. And those that already have heaters aren't
using them near as much, so its not just a slow down in growth, its a
shrinking of total demand which is putting delevery drivers and service
personel out of work..
As to the cost of distribution of fuel, the price most certainly increase,
or are those tank trucks at you gas station running on air? Driver wages
have almost doubled from 1990 to present day. The price of a truck has
increased, road taxes are up, insurance costs for the rig have almost
tripled in the lasts 20 years. In 1983 average per mile wage for a driver
was 11 cents a mile, today it's 44 cents a mile, that's a quadruple
increase.
Whitelightning
JoeSpareBedroom
> Reelly? If that is the case why does one see so many import brands being
> traided in on domestic?
Reely? Where is this happening?
Edwin Pawlowski
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d_mkj.11146$LN4.2644@trnddc07...
>> You buy a car. You don't invest in a car. An investment is something that
>> makes you money. While a car is a necessity to get around, it is not an
>> investment.
>
> I would challenge that. You very much do invest in a car and hope it gives
> you back more than you put into it.
Investments are things like bonds, stock, real estate. Automobiles and
trucks are tools to be used. You will never get back more than you put into
it. They depreciate, wear out, and are thrown away. No different than a pen
or a screwdriver.
Certain collectible cars are exceptions, but they are very few compared to
the millions build every year.
Mr4701
"Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:Lkwkj.8279$pA7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
> news:8Gukj.11241$LN4.7632@trnddc07...
>>
>> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d_mkj.11146$LN4.2644@trnddc07...
>>> You buy a car. You don't invest in a car. An investment is something
>>> that makes you money. While a car is a necessity to get around, it is
>>> not an investment.
>>
>> I would challenge that. You very much do invest in a car and hope it
>> gives you back more than you put into it.
>
> Investments are things like bonds, stock, real estate.
investment(in-vest'm?nt) investment(in-vest'm?nt)
1.. The act of investing.
2.. An amount invested.
3.. Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or
benefit.
4.. A commitment, as of time or support.
5.. A military siege.
6.. Archaic.
7.. A garment; a vestment.
8.. An outer covering or layer.
> Automobiles and trucks are tools to be used. You will never get back more
> than you put into it. They depreciate, wear out, and are thrown away. No
> different than a pen or a screwdriver.
Tell that to the folks who buy Toyotas Cams and are getting 200 to 300
thousand miles out of them.
> Certain collectible cars are exceptions, but they are very few compared to
> the millions build every year.
Indeed, but are we getting this specific. The over-all idea is that you are
getting at the least what you pay for.
Mr4701
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-3B5162....@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <Wxwkj.9816$8A4.479@trnddc02>, "Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net>
> wrote:
>
>> > Automobiles and trucks are tools to be used. You will never get back
>> > more
>> > than you put into it. They depreciate, wear out, and are thrown away.
>> > No
>> > different than a pen or a screwdriver.
>>
>> Tell that to the folks who buy Toyotas Cams and are getting 200 to 300
>> thousand miles out of them.
>
>
> Smart people know how to minimize expenses.
I guess it depends how close you live to work...
Edwin Pawlowski
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
> 3.. Property or another possession acquired for future financial return
> or benefit.
Exactly. Cars and trucks in regular use do not meet that criteria
>
>> Automobiles and trucks are tools to be used. You will never get back
>> more than you put into it. They depreciate, wear out, and are thrown
>> away. No different than a pen or a screwdriver.
>
> Tell that to the folks who buy Toyotas Cams and are getting 200 to 300
> thousand miles out of them.
If it goes a million miles, it is still an expense. Only difference is the
cost per mile.
Mr4701
>
> "Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
> news:Wxwkj.9816$8A4.479@trnddc02...
>
>> 3.. Property or another possession acquired for future financial return
>> or benefit.
>
> Exactly. Cars and trucks in regular use do not meet that criteria
LOL.. What do you consider an investment? This conversation has gotten so
semantical. The fact is that it is an investment. You bought it because you
need it, regardless if it is for time, financial gain, etc. Vehicles are an
investment. You invest in it because you expect to get something out of it.
Not back to the origonal meaning of this thread...
Mr4701
4.. A commitment, as of time or support.
n5...@comcast.net
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
They've had that motto for quite a while now. Back when I bought my 1995
Chevy S-10, the GMC equivalent was exactly the same down to the last detail,
but cost $1,000 more. Maybe "We are professional grade hucksters" is a bit
more appropriate. And here in the Chicago area, they started out with the
picture of that woman with the FU hair next to the slogan. Makes a fellow
wonder what kind of professional grade they were talking about. And after
dumping the S-10 after 4 years of ownership and only 50,000 miles, the GMCs
can't be that much better.
Problems of ownership:
1. First year, vehicle was in to shop 4 times because some set of
conditions were causing it to blow one of its pollution control hoses right
of the connection, causing misfire and rough idle.
2. Mileage on the 2.2 4 never got above 20, even if I kicked it into 5th
gear right at 45.
3. The torque curve sucked. I have a better torque curve on my 95 Corolla
AE104 (1.6l) Trying to pass anyone, even in an unloaded truck, was very
reminiscent of the Shitvette that you had to turn off the AC to pass. . . .
4. Started getting rust the first year. Door hinge was very rusty after
the first winter. Gas tank started showing signs of rust the second spring.
Dealer did NOTHING, despite requests.
5. All brakes had to be replaced at 30,000 miles. And the rotors had to be
replaced, too. This compares very unfavorably with Toyotas I have owned,
that only needed front brake replacement at 50,000 and usually no more than
turning the rotors. Rear brakes on Toyotas last at least 100,000 miles that
I have owned. (I had one that kept its original rear brakes until 213,000
miles, but that was a dealer problem. When they adjusted the brakes, they
would adjust the rear brakes so they did not grip at all. I could pull the
hand brake all the way up and the car would not stop, wouldn't even slow
down. I finally got someone to adjust it the right way. Then when the guy
put in the new brakes, he adjusted them back to the WRONG way again.)
6. The ABS on the S-10 was rear brake only, and one of the piss-poorest ABS
systems I've had to deal with. On any kind of slick, wet, or icy road, if I
had to hit the brakes, the rear end would try to pass the front. I ended up
having to brake old style (i.e. pump the brakes) to keep control of the
vehicle. My 95 Previa has ABS and I've NEVER lost control on a slick or
wet road.
That is why I won't even CONSIDER an American vehicle. Not even a used one.
They're basically trying to do the same thing they've been trying since the
1970's gas shortage: Sell the sizzle instead of the steak. They've had to
improve quality, but they're still trying to get away with less quality than
Toyota. Quality costs too much. Until they get that notion OUT OF THEIR
CHEAP ACCOUNTANT-DRIVEN MINDS, American vehicles are going to never regain
market share. There are a few trucks that Ford builds that are top notch,
but that's about it. Let's face it, Ford's been building their own trucks
since the days of the Model TT. GMC has been engineered almost exactly
like the equvalent Chevy truck since at least the 1950's with only a few
styling differences and a higher price tag. Way too many older GM vehicles
show the infamous GM wheel-well rustout. It had even started on my 4 year
old S-10. Oddly enough, I've never had wheel-well rustout on any of the
Toyotas I've owned, and I've had one to 230,000 miles. And there are a lot
of others on alt.autos.toyota that have had vehicles to over 300,000 miles.
Just where in the HELL does GM test for winter driving? Southern
California? As much ice and snow as they get near Detroit, you'd think
they'd understand salt spray gets up in the wheel wells. Well EXCUSE ME for
needing to drive in bad weather. It's part of my job. That's why I drive a
Toyota, and have since 1974 with one exception.
Charles the Curmudgeon
Bring back rotary phones, and the days I didn't have to press 1 to continue
in English in an ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRY.
n5...@comcast.net
I love how many American vehicles seem to get "Best in original
engineering", but note none of them seem get more than 5 years down the road
without having issues. I had a friend that had a 318 V8 Dakota. At about 5
years it started nickel-and-dimeing him. He traded it for a used Toyota
which was 2 years newer but gave him a lot better service. I drove it in a
couple of winter storms for him. (He was from Texas and didn't know how to
drive in snow.)
Charles the Curmudgeon
Bring back Rotary Dials and not having to press 1 to continue in English in
an English speaking country.
Edwin Pawlowski
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> or benefit.
>>
>> Exactly. Cars and trucks in regular use do not meet that criteria
>
>
> LOL.. What do you consider an investment? This conversation has gotten so
> semantical. The fact is that it is an investment.
Where is the future financial return?
> You bought it because you need it, regardless if it is for time, financial
> gain, etc. Vehicles are an investment. You invest in it because you expect
> to get something out of it.
Just as you do when you expense a too. Cars are tools, a means to do work.
Go talk to your accountant and the IRS.
Mike Marlow
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>
> Tell that to the folks who buy Toyotas Cams and are getting 200 to 300
> thousand miles out of them.
>
Now that is an all time stupid statement. Clearly you don't realize that
most GM products easily go over 200,000 miles. The testimonials to GM car
life is nothing short of that for Toyota.
>
>
>> Certain collectible cars are exceptions, but they are very few compared
>> to the millions build every year.
>
> Indeed, but are we getting this specific. The over-all idea is that you
> are getting at the least what you pay for.
>
Indeed you are with GM products. If you don't believe so, then buy a Toyota
or a Honda, or whatever.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@alltel.net
Mike Marlow
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
Geezus - your comments are getting more foolish every time you post. You
should quit now. You're not ahead, but any more that you say is only going
to make you look even more foolish.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@alltel.net
Mr4701
> Where is the future financial return?
This is what you are not getting. An investment does not mean financial
alone. Investment can mean for personal gain of anything (i.e. money, joy,
etc)
>> You bought it because you need it, regardless if it is for time,
>> financial gain, etc. Vehicles are an investment. You invest in it because
>> you expect to get something out of it.
>
>
> Just as you do when you expense a too. Cars are tools, a means to do
> work.
> Go talk to your accountant and the IRS.
expense is not the opposite of investment...
but assuming it is, we all use our vehicles to make more money because we
use them for travel, which means they get us to work, apointments, etc...
(most of us do anyway)
Mr4701
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlo...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:72747$4792d558$62107bcf$35...@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
> news:Wxwkj.9816$8A4.479@trnddc02...
>
>>
>> Tell that to the folks who buy Toyotas Cams and are getting 200 to 300
>> thousand miles out of them.
>>
>
> Now that is an all time stupid statement. Clearly you don't realize that
> most GM products easily go over 200,000 miles. The testimonials to GM car
> life is nothing short of that for Toyota.
A GM can get to 200k after its been in the shop several times. You arent
going to convince anyone with a brain that GM makes reliable vehicles...
There is a reason foreign cars have the best resell value...
Mr4701
> Geezus - your comments are getting more foolish every time you post. You
> should quit now. You're not ahead, but any more that you say is only
> going to make you look even more foolish.
Do you think your insults demonstrate one bit of dignity? You and a couple
others are trying to suggest that the word investment means financial. Even
though the word investment is often used in terms of financial, it is not
solely defined as financial. Have you ever invested in a relationship?
Probablly not, but you should get the point.
Lastly, you stated it is not a financial investment. I say it is, even
though that is not the way I was defining investment. 9 out of 10 people use
their vehicle to get to work. Now, either their vehicle is giving them a
financial return or it is not. Do you think the average American could walk
to work? That they do not need to "invest" in a vehicle?
Now take your dismisive insults and shove them in your wife. Goodness knows
your little dick is not doing it.
Edwin Pawlowski
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>
> going to convince anyone with a brain that GM makes reliable vehicles...
> There is a reason foreign cars have the best resell value...
Having done it many times myself, there is no reason to believe you. Show
me some real facts.
Mr4701
There are many insults from you and a couple of others not fond of my
opinion...
but anyway, here ya go...
http://www6.autonet.ca/News/story.cfm?story=/News/2005/03/07/953108.html
--"Customers reported an average of 17 problems per 100 vehicles for 2004
models from DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group, Ford Motor Co. and General
Motors Corp., the magazine (Consumer Reports magazine.) said. That was down
from 18 problems per 100 in 2003.
Japanese and Korean automakers had a rate of 12 problems per 100 vehicles --
unchanged in the magazine's last three surveys. European automakers, some of
whom have battled quality issues in recent years, had 21 problems per 100
vehicles. That's up from 20 a year ago."--
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>news:yngkj.83$Wr4.1@trnddc04...
>> GMC's motto is "We are professional grade! <snip>
GMC Truck & Coach (no longer a division since Roger Smith, but just a
nameplate for GM Canada) hasn't sold a "professional grade" pickup
truck since the end of the 1962 model year. Everything that came
after that was a gussied-up Chevy, except for the 305-351-402-478 V6
engine, and the bean counters on Woodward Avenue got rid of that too,
blaming emissions laws.
The real reason? They cost too much to build...they could cobble
together a crappy little small block Chevy for 1/3 the cost of a V6,
and the moron public lapped them up due to GM's slick marketing. After
GMC went down hill, the only pickup truck of choice for real work was
Ford for years. Ask any fleet owner how many small block Chevies they
had to replace per million miles vis à vis a Ford FE back in those
days. Ratio? Around 3 or 4 to 1. The playing field leveled out
again when Ford dumped the FE in '76 and started using Windsor and
365-series car engines in their truck line. That time, Ford did the
same thing GM did, economic reasons, but the FE DID have fatal
emissions problems with that huge intake manifold casting; it simply
wasn't adaptable to bolt-on emissions control, and fared poorly with
increased coolant and exhaust temperatures. It also used about 1/3
more gray iron than did a Windsor or even a 460. Both of the latter
were a bit less than optimal for truck/commerical use, and the 460 was
a fuel pig as well. Not as bad as the horrid Chevy 454, though. I
remember 454 4 bbl Chevy 1 ton duallies getting 3 MPG...incredible.
GM has had a very long history of collusion with oil interests, going
back to the old GM/Standard Oil/General Tire transit raiding scandals
and lawsuits of the '40s and '50s. Back in '58 at the Mobil Economy
Run, the president of Buick Division was queried by a Motor reporter
about the poorest showing of all US cars to that date, 7.9 MPG for the
'58 Buick Century with "Triple Turbine" Dynaflow. His answer caused a
minor panic at Woodward Ave...."Well, of course, we have to keep the
oil companies happy." Visions of trust busters must've plagued Al
Sloan for weeks after that gaffe.
Cadillac, Pontiac and Olds did far better, however, due to their 4
speed HydraMatics and taller rear axle ratios. Chevy actually didn't
do much better than Buick, coming in at 11 MPG for a 348/Turboglide
equipped Impala. The Turboglide was a calculated fuel waster, as was
the Dynaflow. Unfortunately for GM, it also turned out to be one of
the most unreliable automatics since the Packard Ultramatic. The '58
Ford Fairlane 500 with the 332 and Fordomatic? 17 MPG. I have the
article right in front of me...intersting, in retrospect of all of
GM's corporate shucking and jiving since those days.
GM is for idiots...has been since the '60s, and the American public
has been too stupid to realize they've been had.
Doug Adams
I couldn't resist that one!
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:a9tkj.58$uB6.25@trndny05...
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:44:16 -0500, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>> No wonder many people, besides those dumb enough to invest in American
>>> gas guzzlers (or those men who don't feel like men unless they are
>>> cruising their sweaty assholes around in a monster truck that has to be
>>> American Made), are leaving American made steal gas guzzlers; because
>>> they are lied to by the companies.
>>
>> Again, what is your point. Toyota has invested billions to build monster
>> trucks for Americans. So far the result have been second rate, but Toyota
>> is spending millions more to buy market share with huge rebates and
>> incentives.
>
> You know, I can't understand this.
>
> Toyota built their reputation here in the US by selling small, quality
> fuel-efficient vehicles. Has the American consumer changed that much? I
> guess.
>
> I have to admit, the Mazda has roll-down windows, and my Subaru has power
> windows, the Mazda has a 5-speed and the Subaru has a 3-speed auto (and I
> *MEAN* 3-speed! No lockup, no OD).
>
> I like driving the Subaru...even more when I'm doing my 'paper route'. The
> AT and the power windows make driving from stop to stop much easier.
>
> I have 'retired' the Mazda to my day job repairing Dells. Guess what? I
> don't mind the roll-down windows or the 5 speed (except in Amherst/UMass
> when there is a lot of traffic). It's a great car and does everything I
> want. The only thing I do to my cars is swap the radios, since I can get
> better sound out of a $125 aftermarket than a $350 stock unit.
>
> For people who want leather and power windows and ATs etc, etc, fine.
> Know what I'd like? I'd like another simple little car like my '74 Corolla
> with the 'map light' in the dash that also functioned as the dashboard
> illumination. Starts, runs, steers and stops. What else do you need?
>
> Where can I get a Tata?
>
>
>
Mike Marlow
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>
> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlo...@alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:72747$4792d558$62107bcf$35...@ALLTEL.NET...
>>
>> "Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>> news:Wxwkj.9816$8A4.479@trnddc02...
>>
>>>
>>> Tell that to the folks who buy Toyotas Cams and are getting 200 to 300
>>> thousand miles out of them.
>>>
>>
>> Now that is an all time stupid statement. Clearly you don't realize that
>> most GM products easily go over 200,000 miles. The testimonials to GM
>> car life is nothing short of that for Toyota.
>
> A GM can get to 200k after its been in the shop several times. You arent
> going to convince anyone with a brain that GM makes reliable vehicles...
> There is a reason foreign cars have the best resell value...
>
>
Whatever. You could not be further from the truth, but it would serve
nothing to pursue this with you. I'd prefer to just let you twiddle about
with other mindless dolts who babble and spew stuff of which they have no
real knowledge, simply because the current they swim in drags them that way.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@alltel.net
Mike Marlow
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
And from that article, just how in the hell do you arrive at the conclusion
that GM's won't make 200K without significant repairs? You really have some
imagination there Mister.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@alltel.net
Ronald Thompson
Mr4701 wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlo...@alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:72747$4792d558$62107bcf$35...@ALLTEL.NET...
>
>>"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>>news:Wxwkj.9816$8A4.479@trnddc02...
>>
>>
>>>Tell that to the folks who buy Toyotas Cams and are getting 200 to 300
>>>thousand miles out of them.
>>>
>>
>>Now that is an all time stupid statement. Clearly you don't realize that
>>most GM products easily go over 200,000 miles. The testimonials to GM car
>>life is nothing short of that for Toyota.
>
>
> A GM can get to 200k after its been in the shop several times. You arent
> going to convince anyone with a brain that GM makes reliable vehicles...
> There is a reason foreign cars have the best resell value...
I traded in my 89 GMC 1500 had 195,000 when I decided to down size in
2000. The 94 S-10 I replaced it with now has 175,000 on it. None have
had any major repairs other than things like brakes, rotor, etc.
I'm just sorry they replaced the 4.3 with the I-5 and didn't give the
option of a small 8. I have three friends that bought S-10's with the
I-5 and within a year replaced them with Tacomas.
Still debating what I will replace the 94 with.
Ron
Bassplayer12
>
> That is why I won't even CONSIDER an American vehicle. Not even a used
> one. They're basically trying to do the same thing they've been trying
> since the 1970's gas shortage: Sell the sizzle instead of the steak.
> They've had to improve quality, but they're still trying to get away with
> less quality than Toyota. Quality costs too much. Until they get that
> notion OUT OF THEIR
snip
If the average auto worker was making the same average income as the average
American,
what would the cost of cars be?
In other words, when you buy a car, how much of the cost is salary &
benefits?
I am only asking a question.
Edwin Pawlowski
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>
> opinion...
>
> but anyway, here ya go...
>
> http://www6.autonet.ca/News/story.cfm?story=/News/2005/03/07/953108.html
>
Insults? How did I insult you? By questioning your definition of
investment?
The article you reference is of some interest, but it does not show the
typical life or available life of the cars. Things like wind noise, while a
problem, do not affect how many miles the engine will last.
n5...@comcast.net
news:4793606b$0$4062$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
OK, I don't know, but I know it's more than the workers who work for the
Japanese auto makers.
And I don't really care. What I care about is what comes off the assembly
line, not only the Initial Quality (which seems to give J D Powers
goosebumps) but long term quality. What shape is it in after 10 years of
daily use through all kinds of driving, from ultra hot and dry as in Death
Valley, to bitterly cold, icy, snowstorms? Is it going to be a salt-sissy
like most GM products? Other than routine maintenance, is it going to
become a shop queen? My job is such that every time I put the key in the
switch, she has to start. Period. Don't have time to put it in the shop
2-3 days at a time. Don't have a 'wife's car' I can borrow if mine doesn't
work since I'm not married.
--
Charles the Curmugeon
Bring back the Rotary Dial and the days when no one had to press 1 to
continue in English.
n5...@comcast.net
continue in English.
news:hdGdna5RfJEMxA7a...@comcast.com...
Don't bother with the post 94 S10's. My cousin had an 88 S-10 that he drove
so long he wore the original I-4 out. Put in a 350-THD. Since, at close to
200,000 miles the main body color is primer or rust, you'd be surprised he
gets from the kiddies when they challenge him at a stoplight. Or the look
of surprise when he leaves them behind. But then again my brother could
beat Camaros with a 77 I-4 1.6 hemi Toyota.
OTOH I had a 95 S-10 and had issues with it all the time I owned it. Rust,
engine problems, not well designed. Too much sizzle, not as much steak.
--
Charles the Curmugeon
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>> nonsense wrote:
<...>
>> Here is a breakdown of the costs of gasoline:
>> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
>
> The numbers are rigged. They don't show anything
> for profit. 100% is expense according to their
> examples.
If you click on the link on the picture of the pump Explanation of Terms
you will see that you will have your answer, and, perhaps, you will see
that you are making an ass of yourself, because you don't know what
you're talking about.
You choose your nickname (nonsense) well.
>>> Why? Because with
>>> only a few owners it gets easier to price fix.
>
>> I count 13 major oil companies in the US.
>
> That's a small number. How many own refineries?
>
>>> It is past
>>> time to impose a windfall profits tax.
>
>> What windfall profits? Oil companies have an average profit margin of
>> 10%, which is similar to the profit margins of utilities.
>
> Bwahahaha. You're falling for their propaganda.
What propaganda? I determined the average profits from
finance.yahoo.com, which in turn, determined them from the quarterly SEC
filings, for both the oil companies and the utilities.
>>> I sat in a Chicago
>>> courtroom to hear the opening arguments for a price fixing
>>> case (about a decade back) involving corn products. The
>>> meeting was in the far east. The FBI taped the meeting.
>>> The case was brought in federal court in Chicago. The
>>> US guy is serving 20 years in federal prison. I didn't
>>> follow up on finding out what happened to the rest of
>>> the participants. Corn products! Why can't we this done
>>> for fuel?
>
>> First, you have to establish that price fixing is occurring.
>
>>> Oops. That might affect Bush and Bushdaddy income. Nope,
>>> it can't get done in today's Washington. Didn't you know
>>> that all roads lead to Rome? As a federal attorney just
>>> drop a hint anywhere that you're thinking about looking
>>> into fuel prices and be replaced "at the pleasure of the
>>> president" the next day.
>
>> And Gore had ties to Occidental Petroleum. But that doesn't mean that
>> there is price-fixing.
>
> Funny how the cost out the gate at all the refineries is
> the same whether it is US produced oil, or Canadian, or
> brought to the US from the middle east by ship, another
> expense not accounted for in your example.
It's a commodity. Get a clue, if you can.
> Google for the terms lying and statistics. There are a
> number of very good books on the subject.
>
> http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/LieStat/
>
> Web page gives you a sort of an introduction to what's going
> on when they simply fool the reader. What's worse is when
> they downright lie.
You know, you are a waste of my time.
I am not going to respond to you again in this thread until you are able
to actually same something worthwhile.
Jeff
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> nonsense wrote:
>
>
>>>> Yet, this would have no effects on some of the biggest costs of
>>>> making gasoline like crude oil, the cost of distributing and
>>>> refining gasoline and taxes. Oil companies have a net profit margin
>>>> of about 10%.
>
>>> You must be talking about gas stations, not oil companies.
>
>> The operating margins of the oil companies have 10.45%.
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=XOM
>
>>> But let's assume for a moment that you're right. An oil
>>> company turns over its product how many times a year?
>
>>> Look at supermarkets. The big guys work on 1% over their
>>> cost for groceries. They turn that over typically 50 times
>>> a year. Their return on investment (ROI) is fantastic!
>
>> Not really. Let's say a grocer store sells $10,000,000 a year. It
>> costs the grocery store $9,000,000, so it has a $1,000,000 a year
>> gross profit.
>
> Sorry, you're naive.
>
> Lets make these numbers a little smaller for the sake of
> calculation.
>
> A grocer that sells 10K a year can't sit on the merchandise
> for the year. He spends 9K but only 9000/52 as his outlay.
> That's $173 invested and resold every week. His profit
> is $1000 on an investment of $173 which is an ROI of
> approximately 578% when annualized if we don't consider
> his other expenses.
That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. His investment is not
the $173 worth of inventory. His investment is the shelves, the
building, the licenses to sell things, the training for his employees, etc.
By your argument, water companies must make gigantic profits, because
the sell gallons of water over and over again.
When you get a clue, let us know.
Until then, the best thing you can do is shut your mouth.
It is better that you let us think you are an idiot than prove it with
your every post.
Jeff
>> But, it might cost $100,000 a year in costs for the building (rent or
>> the cost of paying the mortgage), $50,000 a year in electricity for
>> lights, freezers, air conditioning, etc., and $500,000 in labor.
>> That's a net profit of $350,000 or a net profit margin of 3.5%.
>
> Now multiply the numbers in my example above, add in your
> petty expenses, and see what you come up with. Your mistake
> is in thinking that the merchandise only gets sold once a
> year when in fact it is sold close to 50 times in real life.
>
>> The return on investment is different. Let's say it costs $10,000 to
>> start the grocery store. The return on investment is about $350,000 /
>> $10,000 or 3500%. Let's say it costs around $5,000,000 to start a
>> grocery store, with the cost of buying the shelves, the building, the
>> air conditioning, the land (don't forget the big parking lot), etc.
>> Then that return on investment is $350,000 / $5,000,000, the return on
>> investment is 7%.
>
> Same error repeated.
>
>>> Exxon made the best profit it ever reported back when gasoline
>>> was about $1.80 a gallon. With not much else, other than
>>> the crude price, changing, what is their net profit margin
>>> when the price of gasoline is at about $3.30 as it is where I
>>> live right now?
>
>> Gee, I don't know. Where I live, it costs $0.74 more for gas, which is
>> the price of refining, the additives, distribution, and the cost of
>> selling (the gross profit the gas station makes). I don't where you
>> live. If you live in CA, it costs $2.30 for crude oil and taxes. The
>> cost of refining is more expensive, because CA has specific
>> requirements. Anyway, the difference in price (pump price - crude oil
>> price and taxes), around $1.00 ($0.42 is the average tax), includes
>> the costs of delivery of the oil to the refinery, the cost of
>> refining, the cost of delivery to the gas station and the gross profit
>> made by the gas station.
>
>> How much of that $1.00 or so is net profit, I don't know. But oil
>> companies have an average net profit of about 10%, so I would guess
>> maybe $0.28.
>>
>>> Things don't scale up the way you seem to think they do.
>>
>>
>> Speak for yourself. You seem to think that a store that sells lots of
>> groceries has a huge profit margin because their stock turns over
>> every week. But they're only making 1% (your value). Geez.
>
> That 1% a week turns out to 52% annually. Have you taken freshman
> algebra yet? Word problems? I don't mean to be insulting, but if
> you can't figure out what 1% markup means when multiplied by
> selling the product 50 times a year then the rest of this discussion
> won't get us anywhere.
>
>
>
Jeff
>> "Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
>>> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d_mkj.11146$LN4.2644@trnddc07...
>>>> You buy a car. You don't invest in a car. An investment is something
>>>> that makes you money. While a car is a necessity to get around, it is
>>>> not an investment.
>>> I would challenge that. You very much do invest in a car and hope it
>>> gives you back more than you put into it.
>> Investments are things like bonds, stock, real estate.
>
>
> investment(in-vest'm?nt) investment(in-vest'm?nt)
> 1.. The act of investing.
> 2.. An amount invested.
> 3.. Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or
> benefit.
> 6.. Archaic.
> 7.. A garment; a vestment.
> 8.. An outer covering or layer.
>
>> Automobiles and trucks are tools to be used. You will never get back more
>> than you put into it. They depreciate, wear out, and are thrown away. No
>> different than a pen or a screwdriver.
>
> thousand miles out of them.
And they never wear out?
Just not as fast as some other cars. But, in the end, they are ready to
be recycled.
Ed White
"Mr4701" <NoEx...@Earth.net> wrote in message
> Toyota does not put all their stock in SUV's... their main concern is
> their car fleet.
Let's see - in the last 5 years - new 4Runner, new RAV4, New Highlander, new
Turdra, new Sequoia.....oh yea, Toyota isn't spending any money on trucks
and SUVs. I guess they finally did get around to rehashing the Corolla afer
more than a decade. And the Camry is almost new.
>> Again, what is your point. Toyota has invested billions to build monster
>> trucks for Americans.
>
> Toyota has tried to get its foot in the market, but is realizing the
> American Pride issues with selling trucks.
Well it would help if they weren't building crap. The Turdra is a huge
mis-step. Wrong truck, wrong time, and a POS besides. I have no idea what
they were thinking over at Toyota Headquarters. They quit buidling a decent
vehcile and replaced it was a cartoon like version of a truck. At least they
still have the Tacoma. If Ford or GM made as big a mistake as Toyota did on
the Tundra, they probaly would go out of buisness.
Ed
Hachiroku ハチロク
> I think they are at the local "strip" club.
>
> I couldn't resist that one!
Hey! So long and thanks for all the fish! (I couldn't resist *that* one! ;)
Hachiroku ハチロク
> Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:19:44 -0500, Mike hunt wrote:
>>
>>> Emagine what the environuts will do if we ever want to build a
>>> nationwide 2500 PSI hydrogen distribution system LOL
>>
>> But the environuts WANT hydrogen!
>
> Why would they want hydrogen? Making hydrogen takes energy and make CO2
> (if it comes from methane).
Because it's not gasoline!
Here's an example of typical Liberal/Environutspeak:
On the BBC (I love the BBC; they make it like shooting fish in a barrel!)
they were talking about a new car (Fiskars? Don't they make scissors?)
being produced in California. The announcer said it is a "true sports car"
that can run for 50 miles on electricity alone, and then if more range is
needed a gas engine kicks in.
The announcer said, "so you can plug the car into the wall for free, and
run for 50 miles on the charge!"
Um, plug the car in "for free"?!?! Last I checked, electricity costs
money. Not only that, but the majority of electricity in the US is
produced by coal or oil fired plants. So, not only does it cost money for
the electricity to run the car, but all you're doing is displacing the
pollution from your car to the generating plant. I suppose that will give
a lot of the Environuts who don't really think things through the Warm
Fuzzies, but some of the smarter one may actually catch on, and move near
Nuclear power plants.
(of course, all power from all sources goes onto the same grid...)
nonsense
> nonsense wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> nonsense wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>>> Here is a breakdown of the costs of gasoline:
>>> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
>>
>>
>> The numbers are rigged. They don't show anything
>> for profit. 100% is expense according to their
>> examples.
>
>
> If you click on the link on the picture of the pump Explanation of Terms
> you will see that you will have your answer, and, perhaps, you will see
> that you are making an ass of yourself, because you don't know what
> you're talking about.
Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the stupidest of them all....
You read the word "profit" and you think you know what it means.
"Refining Costs & Profits - the difference between the
monthly average of the spot price of gasoline or diesel
fuel (used as a proxy for the value of gasoline or diesel
fuel as it exits the refinery) and the average price of
crude oil purchased by refiners (the crude oil component)."
Now that comes from your web page reference.
The pump image shows the following expenses as %:
taxes 13
Dist&Market 9
Refining 10
Crude Oil 68
That adds up to 100%, simple math.
Hidden in there is "profit" scattered among all
the numbers and in escape phrases like the quoted
paragraph above. See my discussion about "lying with
statistics" below.
> You choose your nickname (nonsense) well.
Your opinion hs already proved to be of no value whatsoever.
>>>> Why? Because with
>>>> only a few owners it gets easier to price fix.
>>
>>
>>> I count 13 major oil companies in the US.
>>
>>
>> That's a small number. How many own refineries?
Didn't answer?
>>>> It is past
>>>> time to impose a windfall profits tax.
>>
>>
>>> What windfall profits? Oil companies have an average profit margin of
>>> 10%, which is similar to the profit margins of utilities.
>>
>>
>> Bwahahaha. You're falling for their propaganda.
>
>
> What propaganda? I determined the average profits from
> finance.yahoo.com,
Yahoo? Wow, you're really playing with the big boys for
accurate & in depth information there, eh?
which in turn, determined them from the quarterly SEC
> filings, for both the oil companies and the utilities.
SEC filings. Only one name is needed to dispel anyone of
the value of sec filings and the value to attribute to
those. Enron.
>>>> I sat in a Chicago
>>>> courtroom to hear the opening arguments for a price fixing
>>>> case (about a decade back) involving corn products. The
>>>> meeting was in the far east. The FBI taped the meeting.
>>>> The case was brought in federal court in Chicago. The
>>>> US guy is serving 20 years in federal prison. I didn't
>>>> follow up on finding out what happened to the rest of
>>>> the participants. Corn products! Why can't we this done
>>>> for fuel?
>>
>>
>>> First, you have to establish that price fixing is occurring.
>>
>>
>>>> Oops. That might affect Bush and Bushdaddy income. Nope,
>>>> it can't get done in today's Washington. Didn't you know
>>>> that all roads lead to Rome? As a federal attorney just
>>>> drop a hint anywhere that you're thinking about looking
>>>> into fuel prices and be replaced "at the pleasure of the
>>>> president" the next day.
>>
>>
>>> And Gore had ties to Occidental Petroleum. But that doesn't mean that
>>> there is price-fixing.
>>
>>
>> Funny how the cost out the gate at all the refineries is
>> the same whether it is US produced oil, or Canadian, or
>> brought to the US from the middle east by ship, another
>> expense not accounted for in your example.
>
>
> It's a commodity. Get a clue, if you can.
I haven't seen you understand the basis for calculating
profit yet. Simon says take 50 steps backwards and learn
all the basics that go into understanding business, let
alone the complexities you make believe you know.
>> Google for the terms lying and statistics. There are a
>> number of very good books on the subject.
>>
>> http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/LieStat/
>>
>> Web page gives you a sort of an introduction to what's going
>> on when they simply fool the reader. What's worse is when
>> they downright lie.
> You know, you are a waste of my time.
> I am not going to respond to you again in this thread until you are able
> to actually same something worthwhile.
The classical loser's lament. Good riddance to you, a
big mouth fool.
nonsense
> nonsense wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote:
>>>> Look at supermarkets. The big guys work on 1% over their
>>>> cost for groceries. They turn that over typically 50 times
>>>> a year. Their return on investment (ROI) is fantastic!
>>> Not really. Let's say a grocer store sells $10,000,000 a year. It
>>> costs the grocery store $9,000,000, so it has a $1,000,000 a year
>>> gross profit.
>> Sorry, you're naive.
>> Lets make these numbers a little smaller for the sake of
>> calculation.
>> A grocer that sells 10K a year can't sit on the merchandise
>> for the year. He spends 9K but only 9000/52 as his outlay.
>> That's $173 invested and resold every week. His profit
>> is $1000 on an investment of $173 which is an ROI of
>> approximately 578% when annualized if we don't consider
>> his other expenses.
> That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. His investment is not
> the $173 worth of inventory. His investment is the shelves, the
> building, the licenses to sell things, the training for his employees, etc.
You fail to understand cash and product flow as it
applies to profits and you keep bragging about it.
It doesn't matter that an oil company makes "only" 10.4%
profit on the product flowing through their system when
there are numerous turnovers per year.
There are also numerous other products that come out of
all refineries for which costs cannot be separated.
You're certainly out of your depth.