If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > "jim beam" > wrote > >> >> that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their well >> managed and well run european operations, and european pension/health >> care costs [along with virtually every other cost too] are /way/ >> higher than here. > > Costs have little affect on profitability. Selling price does. You > have to know both to do a comparison between US and Europe So a car that costs $100,000 to build will be real profitable at $25,000? Both costs and selling price are part of profitability. In fact, profit = selling price - costs. Jeff |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
On Apr 5, 11:45*am, "C. E. White" > wrote:
> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message > > ... > > > waste of paper. Actually, newspapers and magazines are wastes of > > paper, too, now that I can get them on the internet for free (and > > soon, I hope, on my iPad - and, no - the iPad isn't an internet > > feminine hygiene product). > > Have you actually gotten an iPad? Till now I have avioded Apple > products for my own use. But the SO has an iPod Touch which she really > likes. My son has a regular iPod Classic which he likes. I keep > hearing the hype about the iPad and think I might get one, but I am > not sure if I'd really use it. If you have one, I'd love to hear your > thoughts. > > Ed Don't have one, but I bet it'll be obsolete in a year. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
"dr_jeff" > wrote in message ... > Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> >> "jim beam" > wrote >> >>> >>> that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their well >>> managed and well run european operations, and european pension/health >>> care costs [along with virtually every other cost too] are /way/ higher >>> than here. >> >> Costs have little affect on profitability. Selling price does. You >> have to know both to do a comparison between US and Europe > > So a car that costs $100,000 to build will be real profitable at $25,000? No, I didn't say that, you are just using a dumb analogy. A car that costs $100,000 to build is profitable at $100,001 though. > Both costs and selling price are part of profitability. In fact, profit = > selling price - costs. > > Jeff But if you can get the right selling price, it does not matter what the cost is. If the marketplace in Europe allows for a higher selling price, GM can make a profit even with higher cost. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
in2dadark wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:45 am, "C. E. White" > wrote: >> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >>> waste of paper. Actually, newspapers and magazines are wastes of >>> paper, too, now that I can get them on the internet for free (and >>> soon, I hope, on my iPad - and, no - the iPad isn't an internet >>> feminine hygiene product). >> Have you actually gotten an iPad? Till now I have avioded Apple >> products for my own use. But the SO has an iPod Touch which she really >> likes. My son has a regular iPod Classic which he likes. I keep >> hearing the hype about the iPad and think I might get one, but I am >> not sure if I'd really use it. If you have one, I'd love to hear your >> thoughts. >> >> Ed > > Don't have one, but I bet it'll be obsolete in a year. By obsolete, I mean no longer useful or being way too old. I have an iPhone 3G. It's been out for almost 2 years already. Although there is a new model out for about 9 months, it's not obselete. Nor is my iPod touch, which I think has been out for about 2 1/2 years. I doubt the iPad will be obselete in a year, even if there is a newer model. Just like my old Ford Contour is not obsolete, even if they haven't made them for about 10 years. Certainly, I can update my iPhone 3G and get the 3GS, but I am fine with the 3G and the extra $500 in my pocket (that's would it would cost for an upgrade). I had planned on doing that when the iPhone 4G comes out in the late spring or early summer, but I may be better off keeping the iPhone and get the iPad or just getting nothing and using what I have. Jeff |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > "dr_jeff" > wrote in message > ... >> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>> >>> "jim beam" > wrote >>> >>>> >>>> that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their >>>> well managed and well run european operations, and european >>>> pension/health care costs [along with virtually every other cost >>>> too] are /way/ higher than here. >>> >>> Costs have little affect on profitability. Selling price does. You >>> have to know both to do a comparison between US and Europe >> >> So a car that costs $100,000 to build will be real profitable at $25,000? > > No, I didn't say that, you are just using a dumb analogy. A car that > costs $100,000 to build is profitable at $100,001 though. > > >> Both costs and selling price are part of profitability. In fact, >> profit = selling price - costs. >> >> Jeff > > But if you can get the right selling price, it does not matter what the > cost is. If the marketplace in Europe allows for a higher selling > price, GM can make a profit even with higher cost. Yet, GM is not making a ton of money in Europe, either. IIRC, around 2006, they were making a bit of a profit in Europe to help offset their losses in the US, but not any more. In Europe, there is plenty of competition, including from Asian brands. And more to come. Jeff |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
On 04/07/2010 03:34 AM, dr_jeff wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> >> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message >> ... >>> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>>> >>>> "jim beam" > wrote >>>> >>>>> >>>>> that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their >>>>> well managed and well run european operations, and european >>>>> pension/health care costs [along with virtually every other cost >>>>> too] are /way/ higher than here. >>>> >>>> Costs have little affect on profitability. Selling price does. You >>>> have to know both to do a comparison between US and Europe >>> >>> So a car that costs $100,000 to build will be real profitable at >>> $25,000? >> >> No, I didn't say that, you are just using a dumb analogy. A car that >> costs $100,000 to build is profitable at $100,001 though. >> >> >>> Both costs and selling price are part of profitability. In fact, >>> profit = selling price - costs. >>> >>> Jeff >> >> But if you can get the right selling price, it does not matter what >> the cost is. If the marketplace in Europe allows for a higher selling >> price, GM can make a profit even with higher cost. > > Yet, GM is not making a ton of money in Europe, either. IIRC, around > 2006, they were making a bit of a profit in Europe to help offset their > losses in the US, but not any more. accounting practices for things like this are somewhat "elastic". i.e. you can load a foreign operation with a bunch of your domestic expenses to "help" the reported profits and tax burden, etc. bottom line, g.m.'s [better managed - better product, more competitive] foreign operations have been carrying the company for years, the european one particularly, even though the european is a very high [real] cost environment. > > In Europe, there is plenty of competition, including from Asian brands. > And more to come. > > Jeff -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
"jim beam" > wrote in message t... > On 04/07/2010 03:34 AM, dr_jeff wrote: >> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>> >>> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "jim beam" > wrote >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their >>>>>> well managed and well run european operations, and european >>>>>> pension/health care costs [along with virtually every other >>>>>> cost >>>>>> too] are /way/ higher than here. >>>>> >>>>> Costs have little affect on profitability. Selling price does. >>>>> You >>>>> have to know both to do a comparison between US and Europe >>>> >>>> So a car that costs $100,000 to build will be real profitable at >>>> $25,000? >>> >>> No, I didn't say that, you are just using a dumb analogy. A car >>> that >>> costs $100,000 to build is profitable at $100,001 though. >>> >>> >>>> Both costs and selling price are part of profitability. In fact, >>>> profit = selling price - costs. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>> >>> But if you can get the right selling price, it does not matter >>> what >>> the cost is. If the marketplace in Europe allows for a higher >>> selling >>> price, GM can make a profit even with higher cost. >> >> Yet, GM is not making a ton of money in Europe, either. IIRC, >> around >> 2006, they were making a bit of a profit in Europe to help offset >> their >> losses in the US, but not any more. > > accounting practices for things like this are somewhat "elastic". > i.e. you can load a foreign operation with a bunch of your domestic > expenses to "help" the reported profits and tax burden, etc. bottom > line, g.m.'s [better managed - better product, more competitive] > foreign operations have been carrying the company for years, the > european one particularly, even though the european is a very high > [real] cost environment. I don't agree that GM's European operation have been carrying the company for years. In fact, I suspect the opposite is true recently. Opel has been struggling for decades. Saab is gone. GM does actually sell a significant number of "Chevrolets" (mostly rebadged Daewoos) and Cadillacs in Europe which is surprsing (at least to me). As you say, interantional companies can and do manipulate earning transfers between countries mostly to try and minimize taxes. Your comment about Europe being a very high cost environement is true but you ignore the fact that the playing field is much more level in Europe. European countries all have government run health care programs, so GM is not saddled with paying for deluxe health care for workers while some competitors with younger non-union work forces don't have the same high health care benefit costs. Western European countries all have strict pension rules, so while GM may have high pension costs in Europe, so do all the competitors. Ed |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
On 04/08/2010 04:31 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message > t... >> On 04/07/2010 03:34 AM, dr_jeff wrote: >>> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>>> >>>> > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "jim > wrote >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on their >>>>>>> well managed and well run european operations, and european >>>>>>> pension/health care costs [along with virtually every other >>>>>>> cost >>>>>>> too] are /way/ higher than here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Costs have little affect on profitability. Selling price does. >>>>>> You >>>>>> have to know both to do a comparison between US and Europe >>>>> >>>>> So a car that costs $100,000 to build will be real profitable at >>>>> $25,000? >>>> >>>> No, I didn't say that, you are just using a dumb analogy. A car >>>> that >>>> costs $100,000 to build is profitable at $100,001 though. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Both costs and selling price are part of profitability. In fact, >>>>> profit = selling price - costs. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> But if you can get the right selling price, it does not matter >>>> what >>>> the cost is. If the marketplace in Europe allows for a higher >>>> selling >>>> price, GM can make a profit even with higher cost. >>> >>> Yet, GM is not making a ton of money in Europe, either. IIRC, >>> around >>> 2006, they were making a bit of a profit in Europe to help offset >>> their >>> losses in the US, but not any more. >> >> accounting practices for things like this are somewhat "elastic". >> i.e. you can load a foreign operation with a bunch of your domestic >> expenses to "help" the reported profits and tax burden, etc. bottom >> line, g.m.'s [better managed - better product, more competitive] >> foreign operations have been carrying the company for years, the >> european one particularly, even though the european is a very high >> [real] cost environment. > > I don't agree that GM's European operation have been carrying the > company for years. In fact, I suspect the opposite is true recently. "recently" being the last couple of years. prior to that, it was solid blackline. and don't forget the accounting flexibility - internationals have considerable latitude in how they report these days and right now, to attract more of the bailout €'s the germans have been throwing about, you can bet that g.m.'s euro ops are "losing money". > Opel has been struggling for decades. not true. they have enjoyed significant profits, and have been ranked # 1or 2 in the euro sales leagues for ages. see above. > Saab is gone. saab was already gone. g.m. should never have bought it. but they sure did hasten saab's demise. > GM does actually > sell a significant number of "Chevrolets" (mostly rebadged Daewoos) > and Cadillacs in Europe which is surprsing (at least to me). As you > say, interantional companies can and do manipulate earning transfers > between countries mostly to try and minimize taxes. and whine for subsidy €'s. > > Your comment about Europe being a very high cost environement is true > but you ignore the fact that the playing field is much more level in > Europe. European countries all have government run health care > programs, so GM is not saddled with paying for deluxe health care for > workers while some competitors with younger non-union work forces > don't have the same high health care benefit costs. you've been suckered in by too much propaganda. european employers get charged directly by the state for health care. as do employees. when i was last there, it was ~10% employee, with an additional ~10% employer. that's a 20% total wage burden, which of course is effectively all paid by the employer. [this is in addition to income tax of course. it all amounts to the same thing, but i guess differentiation is one of those deceits that makes it more acceptable to an electorate.] then there are all the other local and state taxes they pay, which also have public health components. the only thing that keeps this whole thing manageable is that through their centralized systems, inefficient though it may appear, their percentage of gdp spent on health care is roughly half that of what we spend. > Western European > countries all have strict pension rules, and massive union burdens too. you cannot fire underperformers in germany. > so while GM may have high > pension costs in Europe, so do all the competitors. indeed, they have significantly higher costs, but can still make a profit. whereas they say they can't here. what is wrong with this picture? > > Ed > > -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
"jim beam" > wrote in message t... > On 04/08/2010 04:31 AM, C. E. White wrote: >> "jim > wrote in message >> t... >>> On 04/07/2010 03:34 AM, dr_jeff wrote: >>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "jim > wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that doesn't explain it. g.m. have been making profits on >>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>> well managed and well run european operations, and european >>>>>>>> pension/health care costs [along with virtually every other >>>>>>>> cost >>>>>>>> too] are /way/ higher than here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Costs have little affect on profitability. Selling price does. >>>>>>> You >>>>>>> have to know both to do a comparison between US and Europe >>>>>> >>>>>> So a car that costs $100,000 to build will be real profitable >>>>>> at >>>>>> $25,000? >>>>> >>>>> No, I didn't say that, you are just using a dumb analogy. A car >>>>> that >>>>> costs $100,000 to build is profitable at $100,001 though. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Both costs and selling price are part of profitability. In >>>>>> fact, >>>>>> profit = selling price - costs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> But if you can get the right selling price, it does not matter >>>>> what >>>>> the cost is. If the marketplace in Europe allows for a higher >>>>> selling >>>>> price, GM can make a profit even with higher cost. >>>> >>>> Yet, GM is not making a ton of money in Europe, either. IIRC, >>>> around >>>> 2006, they were making a bit of a profit in Europe to help offset >>>> their >>>> losses in the US, but not any more. >>> >>> accounting practices for things like this are somewhat "elastic". >>> i.e. you can load a foreign operation with a bunch of your >>> domestic >>> expenses to "help" the reported profits and tax burden, etc. >>> bottom >>> line, g.m.'s [better managed - better product, more competitive] >>> foreign operations have been carrying the company for years, the >>> european one particularly, even though the european is a very high >>> [real] cost environment. >> >> I don't agree that GM's European operation have been carrying the >> company for years. In fact, I suspect the opposite is true >> recently. > > "recently" being the last couple of years. prior to that, it was > solid blackline. and don't forget the accounting flexibility - > internationals have considerable latitude in how they report these > days and right now, to attract more of the bailout ?'s the germans > have been throwing about, you can bet that g.m.'s euro ops are > "losing money". > > >> Opel has been struggling for decades. > > not true. they have enjoyed significant profits, and have been > ranked # 1or 2 in the euro sales leagues for ages. see above. > > >> Saab is gone. > > saab was already gone. g.m. should never have bought it. but they > sure did hasten saab's demise. > > >> GM does actually >> sell a significant number of "Chevrolets" (mostly rebadged Daewoos) >> and Cadillacs in Europe which is surprsing (at least to me). As you >> say, interantional companies can and do manipulate earning >> transfers >> between countries mostly to try and minimize taxes. > > and whine for subsidy ?'s. > > >> >> Your comment about Europe being a very high cost environement is >> true >> but you ignore the fact that the playing field is much more level >> in >> Europe. European countries all have government run health care >> programs, so GM is not saddled with paying for deluxe health care >> for >> workers while some competitors with younger non-union work forces >> don't have the same high health care benefit costs. > > you've been suckered in by too much propaganda. european employers > get charged directly by the state for health care. as do employees. > when i was last there, it was ~10% employee, with an additional ~10% > employer. that's a 20% total wage burden, which of course is > effectively all paid by the employer. [this is in addition to > income tax of course. it all amounts to the same thing, but i guess > differentiation is one of those deceits that makes it more > acceptable to an electorate.] then there are all the other local > and state taxes they pay, which also have public health components. > the only thing that keeps this whole thing manageable is that > through their centralized systems, inefficient though it may appear, > their percentage of gdp spent on health care is roughly half that of > what we spend. > > >> Western European >> countries all have strict pension rules, > > and massive union burdens too. you cannot fire underperformers in > germany. > > >> so while GM may have high >> pension costs in Europe, so do all the competitors. > > indeed, they have significantly higher costs, but can still make a > profit. whereas they say they can't here. what is wrong with this > picture? > I did not say GM doesn't have higher costs in Europe. They do. I said the playing field was more level in Europe. It is. In the US, GM has to go head to head with Asian car makers that have much lower benefit and pension costs. In Eurpoe, all automakers work under the similar constraints (even Nissan, Toyota, and Honda). Eurpoeans restrict imports to a degree unknow in the US. Despite years of trying Toyta has never passed a 6% market share in Europe. While I agree that in the past Opel made moeny and much of the profit was shifted to GM in the US (mostly for tax reasons), I don't see how you are assuming Opel is making money now and GM is hiding it. Opel's European market share has recently been below 7%. This way down compared to the past. GM is closing at least one Opel factory and others cuts are planned. GM would have sold Opel, except they realized with all the US cuts, they needed Opel's engineering to help with smaller cars. Opel is in just about the same state as is GM in the US. Here are some references: http://wot.motortrend.com/6606781/au...012/index.html http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6210UW20100302 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1A1-D98JOPKG0.html http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/shi...naround-europe http://media.opel.com/content/media/..._reilly_future http://gmeurope.info/MOPIDB/download...82111EbIGdhfCj http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...tegy-for-opel/ Ed |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cost of oil vs profit | Studemania | Driving | 0 | July 23rd 08 12:40 AM |
Pay Dealer Cost on a New BMW | health3.com.Cn | BMW | 0 | April 4th 08 04:56 PM |
cost | [email protected] | Honda | 3 | October 1st 07 04:15 PM |
New Headlamps -- cost v. value | '96 black on, black in, black over | Mazda | 3 | December 29th 04 02:12 AM |
R-12 Cost/Value | Tom Howlin | Mazda | 6 | November 4th 04 10:25 PM |