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

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.

"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.

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

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

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

"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

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

"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