Obamanomics...After admitting loss...GM denies losses of $49,000 on every Chevrolet Volt.

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

The bottom line: They're losing money on every single vehicle and lying
about it.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/09/10/chevrolet-
volt/70000080/1#.UE53ybJlSIw

General Motors is dismissing a media report describing the Chevrolet Volt,
it's extended-range electric car, as a major money loser. Those reports,
the automakers says in a statement, are "grossly wrong."

Reuters estimates that GM is losing as much as $49,000 on every Volt.
That's $10,000 more than the extended-range electric car's sales price.
But the automaker said the wire service's calculations ignored that
development costs are typically spread out among all vehicles sold over
the course of the model's lifetime.

GM has acknowledged it's losing money on the Volt, but won't say how much.
But GM argued that its investment will pay off over time as Volt sales
accelerate and the cost of the extended-range electric/generator
powertrain comes down and is offered in other models over time.

The car, which can travel up to 38 miles on a battery charge before a
gasoline-powered generator kicks in, has missed GM's original sales
targets for 2012. It sells for $39,995 as its base price. Sales are
picking up after some dealers started offering a cheap lease, California
certified that single drivers can drive the Volt in carpool lanes.
Chevrolet sold 2,831 Volts last month, its strongest month since its
launch.

Reuters wrote that "the loss per vehicle will shrink as more are built and
sold."

"Every investment in technology that GM makes is designed to have a payoff
for our customers, to meet future regulatory requirements and add to the
bottom line," GM said in a statement. "The Volt is no different, even if
it takes longer to become profitable."

It's the latest in a series of publicity challenges for the Volt, which
conservatives have criticized as the Obama-mobile, despite the fact that
it was in the works years before Barack Obama considered running for the
White House. The car was first introduced as a concept vehicle in January
2007, two years before Obama took office, and was first sold in fall 2010.

Sales of gasoline-electric hybrids that don't need to be recharged have
risen 65% this year through August to 278,680, led by Toyota's family of
Prius models, which accounted for 57% of that market segment.
--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.

Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"

Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder, committed treason by knowingly and
deliberately arming enemies of the United States of America through
Operation Fast and Furious. Complicit in the murder of Federal employees
during the execution of their duties.



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ***@netfront.net ---

[Short-Cut]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:53:29 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
The bottom line: They're losing money on every single vehicle and lying
about it.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/09/10/chevrolet-
volt/70000080/1#.UE53ybJlSIw
General Motors is dismissing a media report describing the Chevrolet Volt,
it's extended-range electric car, as a major money loser. Those reports,
the automakers says in a statement, are "grossly wrong."
Reuters estimates that GM is losing as much as $49,000 on every Volt.
That's $10,000 more than the extended-range electric car's sales price.
But the automaker said the wire service's calculations ignored that
development costs are typically spread out among all vehicles sold over
the course of the model's lifetime.
GM has acknowledged it's losing money on the Volt, but won't say how much.
But GM argued that its investment will pay off over time as Volt sales
accelerate and the cost of the extended-range electric/generator
powertrain comes down and is offered in other models over time.
The car, which can travel up to 38 miles on a battery charge before a
gasoline-powered generator kicks in, has missed GM's original sales
targets for 2012. It sells for $39,995 as its base price. Sales are
picking up after some dealers started offering a cheap lease, California
certified that single drivers can drive the Volt in carpool lanes.
Chevrolet sold 2,831 Volts last month, its strongest month since its
launch.
Reuters wrote that "the loss per vehicle will shrink as more are built and
sold."
"Every investment in technology that GM makes is designed to have a payoff
for our customers, to meet future regulatory requirements and add to the
bottom line," GM said in a statement. "The Volt is no different, even if
it takes longer to become profitable."
It's the latest in a series of publicity challenges for the Volt, which
conservatives have criticized as the Obama-mobile, despite the fact that
it was in the works years before Barack Obama considered running for the
White House. The car was first introduced as a concept vehicle in January
2007, two years before Obama took office, and was first sold in fall 2010.
Sales of gasoline-electric hybrids that don't need to be recharged have
risen 65% this year through August to 278,680, led by Toyota's family of
Prius models, which accounted for 57% of that market segment.

I suspect the Volt would sell better if Obama took it around with him
on the campaign trail - show it off as an "accomplishment" to his
followers.

[Nickname unavailable]

Post by Short-Cut
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:53:29 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"

The bottom line:  They're losing money on every single vehicle and lying
about it.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/09/10/chevr...
volt/70000080/1#.UE53ybJlSIw
General Motors is dismissing a media report describing the Chevrolet Volt,
it's extended-range electric car, as a major money loser. Those reports,
the automakers says in a statement, are "grossly wrong."
Reuters estimates that GM is losing as much as $49,000 on every Volt.
That's $10,000 more than the extended-range electric car's sales price.
But the automaker said the wire service's calculations ignored that
development costs are typically spread out among all vehicles sold over
the course of the model's lifetime.
GM has acknowledged it's losing money on the Volt, but won't say how much.
But GM argued that its investment will pay off over time as Volt sales
accelerate and the cost of the extended-range electric/generator
powertrain comes down and is offered in other models over time.
The car, which can travel up to 38 miles on a battery charge before a
gasoline-powered generator kicks in, has missed GM's original sales
targets for 2012. It sells for $39,995 as its base price. Sales are
picking up after some dealers started offering a cheap lease, California
certified that single drivers can drive the Volt in carpool lanes.
Chevrolet sold 2,831 Volts last month, its strongest month since its
launch.
Reuters wrote that "the loss per vehicle will shrink as more are built and
sold."
"Every investment in technology that GM makes is designed to have a payoff
for our customers, to meet future regulatory requirements and add to the
bottom line," GM said in a statement. "The Volt is no different, even if
it takes longer to become profitable."
It's the latest in a series of publicity challenges for the Volt, which
conservatives have criticized as the Obama-mobile, despite the fact that
it was in the works years before Barack Obama considered running for the
White House. The car was first introduced as a concept vehicle in January
2007, two years before Obama took office, and was first sold in fall 2010.
Sales of gasoline-electric hybrids that don't need to be recharged have
risen 65% this year through August to 278,680, led by Toyota's family of
Prius models, which accounted for 57% of that market segment.

I suspect the Volt would sell better if Obama took it around with him
on the campaign trail - show it off as an "accomplishment" to his
followers.

new technology loses money in the beginnings. but a conservative
would never understand that, technology scares them.


 but upon careful examination "THE CONSERVATIVES"  feeble attempts at
confusion and dishonesty does not stand up to the light. they live in
a counter-factual universe, the product of the hermetically sealed
"CONSERVATIVE" subculture. Trying to see the world through the lens
of
"THE CONSERVATIVE", is like looking at a fun-house mirror;
everything’s backwards and distorted.

"THE CONSERVATIVES" world view is flawed because its based upon a
small and particularly rosy sliver of reality.  To preserve that world
view, "THE CONSERVATIVES" believe that people had morally earned their
“just” desserts, and had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to
point out that the world didn’t actually work that way.  I think this
shows why "THE CONSERVATIVES" put so much effort into “creat[ing]
their own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts,
scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be
dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it).  It explains
why study after study shows that avid consumers of "THE CONSERVATIVE"-
oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news
sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 12, 2:53 am, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <***@usurper.org>
wrote:


why do "CONSERVATIVES" lie so much?:not only do they lie/they have no
real comprehension skills about product development and costs:how a
business spreads those costs over time:Why GM Is Not Losing $49k Per
Chevy Volt


http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/reuters-math-fail-why-gm-not-losing-49k-chevy-volt

Reuters' Math Fail! Why GM Is Not Losing $49k Per Chevy Volt




Right-wingers couldn’t have been more thrilled to read a Reuters story
revealing that GM is losing $49k on every Chevy Volt. Electric car
haters and anti-government zealots rejoice! Except, Reuters — and the
three journalists bylined on this story — it turns out are really bad
at basic business math. Reuters writes, “Nearly two years after the
introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing
as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds.”
So where’s the problem? The International Business Times explains:
General Motors has sold approximately 21,500 Volts since the gasoline-
electric hybrid was introduced in December 2010, and development costs
of the high-tech car are estimated at between $1 billion and $1.2
billion by Reuters' calculations. Production costs for the Volt are
estimated at between $20,000 and $32,000, a wide margin to be sure.
The Volt retails for a base price of $39,145 (before a federal tax
credit of $7,500).
The issue with Reuters' math, though, is that it only takes into
account the 21,500 Volts sold so far, as if GM would never sell
another one. If that is taken to be true, then each Volt sold has cost
GM around $55,000 in development costs. However, each Volt sold
spreads out the development costs incrementally, pushing down the R&D
cost per unit. GM has acknowledged that it has not yet sold enough
Volts to break even, but it suspects that it will reach the break-even
point by the time the second- generation Volt is introduced onto the
market in about three years' time.
Conservatives had a field-day of course, running with Reuters poor
reporting. As Wonkette details:
But look at the capitalism experts at sites like The Blaze, or Free
Republic, or Townhall, or the hideously named “Twitchy.com” — The
typical comment goes something like this: “They’re losing $50K per
car, but don’t worry, they’ll make it up in volume!!! HAW HAW HAW!”
Um. Yeah. Actually, that is how development costs work. We thought you
guys understood business?

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
why do "CONSERVATIVES" lie so much?:not only do they lie/they have no
real comprehension skills about product development and costs:how a
business spreads those costs over time:Why GM Is Not Losing $49k Per
Chevy Volt

That may or may not be true. Personally, I think the number is wrong,
but I don't have inside costs and forecasts to say for sure either
way.

Post by Nickname unavailable
http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/reuters-math-fail-why-gm-not-losing-49k-chevy-volt
Reuters' Math Fail! Why GM Is Not Losing $49k Per Chevy Volt
The
typical comment goes something like this: “They’re losing $50K per
car, but don’t worry, they’ll make it up in volume!!! HAW HAW HAW!”
Um. Yeah. Actually, that is how development costs work. We thought you
guys understood business?

Correct, but you have to have the volume. So far, lots of development
cost, very little volume. Actual sales less than half the
projections.

If the projects are for more than double the sales, there are
significant cost not being carried by the low volume. Either GM did a
poor job of forecasting, or someone inflated expectations to scam
investors. That has been done millions of time both by conservatives
and liberals in all sort of business deals. .

Right now. all anyone can really say is "we'll see". Lets revisit
this in a year or two. Right now, it is a poor showing anyway.

[Nickname unavailable]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
why do "CONSERVATIVES" lie so much?:not only do they lie/they have no
real comprehension skills about product development and costs:how a
business spreads those costs over time:Why GM Is Not Losing $49k Per
Chevy Volt

That may or may not be true. Personally, I think the number is wrong,
but I don't have inside costs and forecasts to say for sure either
way.

the number could be way off, after all, it looks like "CONSERVATIVES"
did the math.

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by Nickname unavailable
http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/reuters-math-fail-why-gm-not-l...
Reuters' Math Fail! Why GM Is Not Losing $49k Per Chevy Volt
The
typical comment goes something like this: “They’re losing $50K per
car, but don’t worry, they’ll make it up in volume!!! HAW HAW HAW!”
Um. Yeah. Actually, that is how development costs work. We thought you
guys understood business?

Correct, but you have to have the volume.  So far, lots of development
cost, very little volume.  Actual sales less than half the
projections.

it matters not. have you any idea how many products never make money,
even though projections said different. now be careful, the industrial
revolution goes back centuries, and covers perhaps many millions of
products, and of course in those products, lots of market failures.

Post by Ed Pawlowski
If the projects are for more than double the sales, there are
significant cost not being carried by the low volume.  Either GM did a
poor job of forecasting, or someone inflated expectations to scam
investors.  That has been done millions of time both by conservatives
and liberals in all sort of business deals. .

not every product becomes a beany baby. even though market research
says otherwise.

Post by Ed Pawlowski
Right now. all anyone can really say is "we'll see".  Lets revisit
this in a year or two.  Right now, it is a poor showing anyway.

as it is with millions of products that fail. a "CONSERVATIVE" would
never understand that. not saying you are, just understand, the
markets are full of failures costing untold dollars over centuries.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:45:00 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
it matters not. have you any idea how many products never make money,
even though projections said different. now be careful, the industrial
revolution goes back centuries, and covers perhaps many millions of
products, and of course in those products, lots of market failures.

But we are talking about one product from one company here. Many
products fail, even good ones.

Post by Nickname unavailable

Post by Ed Pawlowski
Right now. all anyone can really say is "we'll see".  Lets revisit
this in a year or two.  Right now, it is a poor showing anyway.

as it is with millions of products that fail. a "CONSERVATIVE" would
never understand that. not saying you are, just understand, the
markets are full of failures costing untold dollars over centuries.

But we are talking one product from a company that took tons of
taxpayer dollars. It is OUR investment. You political affiliations
should not matter, only where OUR money is going. There has to be
accountability along with risk in a new product.

[Nickname unavailable]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:45:00 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
it matters not. have you any idea how many products never make money,
even though projections said different. now be careful, the industrial
revolution goes back centuries, and covers perhaps many millions of
products, and of course in those products, lots of market failures.

But we are talking about one product from one company here.  Many
products fail, even good ones.

it still matters not. market failures are part of business. but its
still not a failure yet. and it proves how little "CONSERVATIVES" know
about business.

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by Nickname unavailable

Post by Ed Pawlowski
Right now. all anyone can really say is "we'll see".  Lets revisit
this in a year or two.  Right now, it is a poor showing anyway.

as it is with millions of products that fail. a "CONSERVATIVE" would
never understand that. not saying you are, just understand, the
markets are full of failures costing untold dollars over centuries.

But we are talking one  product from a company that took tons of
taxpayer dollars.  It is OUR investment.  You political affiliations
should not matter, only where OUR money is going.  There has to be
accountability along with risk in a new product.

there is risk daily in every project, regardless how its funded. if
you think that there should be no risk, we would have never gone to
the moon, and nasa would not have created so many successful spin off
technologies. its expensive being cutting edge, it takes big thinkers,
"CONSERVATIVES" are small thinkers.
the majority of the founders were liberals, and they started out
loaning money to the private sector almost from day one. they wanted
innovation and production. you probably are unaware of how much was
and is funded by government, and who takes that money.

the founders of the american government loaned paul revere start up
money for industrial production:america was founded on a strong
government with broad based powers to tax/legislate/regulate and to
promote and provide for the general welfare


http://americanmanufacturing.org/blog/paul-revere-us-manufacturer-saved-day-237-years-ago-today

Paul Revere, U.S. manufacturer, saved the day--237 years ago today
Posted by scapozzola on 04/18/2012





Today is April 18, 2012...
On this day in 1775, Paul Revere rode to Lexington, Massachusetts, to
warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching
to arrest them. After being rowed across the Charles River to
Charlestown by two associates, Revere borrowed a horse from his friend
Deacon John Larkin and set out on horseback.

On the way to Lexington,
Revere "alarmed" the country-side, stopping at each house to announce
that "The British are coming."
Revere's ride was made famous in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem,
"Paul Revere's Ride."  But Revere is also recognized as one of the
nation's first great manufacturers.  A metalworker and silversmith,
Revere's work became highly prized, and he produced more than 5,000
products in his shop, including buckles, buttons, rings and beads.
Revere understood the need for a nation to be industrially self-
sufficient.  To rectify desperate shortages of gunpowder during the
Revolutionary War, Revere studied the one working gunpowder mill in
the colonies, located in Philadelphia.  He subsequently built a new
powder mill in Canton, Massachusetts that produced tons of gunpowder
for the revolutionary army.
After the war, and finding the silver trade to be more difficult,
Revere became a pioneer in the production of rolled copper, opening
North America's first copper mill south of Boston in Canton, in 1800.
Revere had initially launched his copper works at the behest of the
U.S. government.  Concerned about a possible second war with the
British, the U.S. Navy loaned Revere $10,000 to launch a foundry that
couuld sheathe the hulls of naval vessels with protective copper
layering.  The early U.S. government astutely feared a potential
second conflict with the British and, in recognizing the need for both
greater domestic manufacturing and national secturity, funded the
start-up of Revere's company.
After the initial naval work, copper from the Revere Copper Company
was used to cover the original wooden dome of the Massachusetts State
House in 1802. The firm also cast the first church bell made in Boston
and ultimately produced more than 900 church bells. This church bell
worked helped Revere to pay off his debts to the U.S. government and
expand his business.

Revere's copper and brass works eventually grew
into a large national corporation, Revere Copper and Brass, Inc. That
company continues today as the Revere Copper Products in Rome, New
York.
Revere Copper's Chairman, Brian O'Shaughnessy, says that Revere's
legacy is still exceptionally relevant today, and that his spirit of
craftsmanship and innovation lives on, fused with the copper
industry's most advanced technologies and highest standards of
excellence.  Revere Copper continues to advocate for domestic U.S.
manufacturers and is outspoken in its concerns about America remaining
competitive in the face of "the mercantilism of China and other
countries."

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
it still matters not. market failures are part of business. but its
still not a failure yet. and it proves how little "CONSERVATIVES" know
about business.

Your problem is, you hate conservatives for everything. You can't
have a rational discussion about the success or failure of the Volt
unless you bring politics into it.

[Nickname unavailable]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
it still matters not. market failures are part of business. but its
still not a failure yet. and it proves how little "CONSERVATIVES" know
about business.

Your problem is, you hate conservatives for everything.  You can't
have a rational discussion about the success or failure of the Volt
unless you bring politics into it.

what rational discussion? your type has little or no understandings
about how business works. you merely hate.


the republican party is simply running out of al bundy, homer
simpson, archie bunker types. people so stupid, they cannot even do
basic math, let alone come in from the rain.
the constitution of the united states was a anti-conservative
statement by the majority of the founders of the united states of
america.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
it still matters not. market failures are part of business. but its
still not a failure yet. and it proves how little "CONSERVATIVES" know
about business.

Your problem is, you hate conservatives for everything.  You can't
have a rational discussion about the success or failure of the Volt
unless you bring politics into it.

what rational discussion? your type has little or no understandings
about how business works. you merely hate.

Ah, proves my point. What is "my type"? I'm not under either the
conservative or liberal label. I hate no one, but it seems you hate
conservatives, at least the extreme right.

I run a business. In my career, I've owned or run a few with good
success.

Post by Nickname unavailable
the republican party is simply running out of al bundy, homer
simpson, archie bunker types. people so stupid, they cannot even do
basic math, let alone come in from the rain.

Not my problem, I'm not a Republican.

Post by Nickname unavailable
the constitution of the united states was a anti-conservative
statement by the majority of the founders of the united states of
america.

I though we were discussing the success and/or failure of the Volt.
See, you can't discuss automotive topics, you have to go to politics.
If you want to discuss the Volt or GM in general, please continue. If
you want to discuss politics, I'm not interested.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
it still matters not. market failures are part of business. but its
still not a failure yet. and it proves how little "CONSERVATIVES" know
about business.

Your problem is, you hate conservatives for everything. You can't
have a rational discussion about the success or failure of the Volt
unless you bring politics into it.

what rational discussion? your type has little or no understandings
about how business works. you merely hate.

Ah, proves my point. What is "my type"? I'm not under either the
conservative or liberal label. I hate no one, but it seems you hate
conservatives, at least the extreme right.
I run a business. In my career, I've owned or run a few with good
success.

Sure... how's that ObamaCare working out for you?


Are your eyes bleeding from all the late nights pouring over the
Bureaucratic legal speak?

Or did you pay a lawyer $400 an hour to tell you what you have to do to
comply?

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 15, 12:08 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
it still matters not. market failures are part of business. but its
still not a failure yet. and it proves how little "CONSERVATIVES" know
about business.

Your problem is, you hate conservatives for everything.  You can't
have a rational discussion about the success or failure of the Volt
unless you bring politics into it.

what rational discussion? your type has little or no understandings
about how business works. you merely hate.

Ah, proves my point.  What is "my type"?  I'm not under either the
conservative or liberal label.  I hate no one, but it seems you hate
conservatives, at least the extreme right.
I run a business.  In my career, I've owned or run a few with good
success.

Sure...  how's that ObamaCare working out for you?
Are your eyes bleeding from all the late nights pouring over the
Bureaucratic legal speak?
Or did you pay a lawyer $400 an hour to tell you what you have to do to
comply?

see Ed. here is a prime example.

that is why i sign off like this sometimes.

the republican party is simply running out of al bundy, homer
simpson, archie bunker types. people so stupid, they cannot even do
basic math, let alone come in from the rain.
the constitution of the united states was a anti-conservative
statement by the majority of the founders of the united states of
america.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 but upon careful examination "THE CONSERVATIVES"  feeble attempts at
confusion and dishonesty does not stand up to the light. they live in
a counter-factual universe, the product of the hermetically sealed
"CONSERVATIVE" subculture. Trying to see the world through the lens
of
"THE CONSERVATIVE", is like looking at a fun-house mirror;
everything’s backwards and distorted.

"THE CONSERVATIVES" world view is flawed because its based upon a
small and particularly rosy sliver of reality.  To preserve that world
view, "THE CONSERVATIVES" believe that people had morally earned their
“just” desserts, and had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to
point out that the world didn’t actually work that way.  I think this
shows why "THE CONSERVATIVES" put so much effort into “creat[ing]
their own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts,
scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be
dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it).  It explains
why study after study shows that avid consumers of "THE CONSERVATIVE"-
oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news
sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.

[Heron]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
I though we were discussing the success and/or failure of the Volt.
See, you can't discuss automotive topics, you have to go to politics.
If you want to discuss the Volt or GM in general, please continue. If
you want to discuss politics, I'm not interested.

Just curious, have you ever once taken one of the many, many
conservative posters to task for injecting politics? If the answer
is yes, can you provide an example? If the answer is either no
or you are unable to provide that example, then your response
or lack thereof speaks volumes.

[Nickname unavailable]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
it still matters not. market failures are part of business. but its
still not a failure yet. and it proves how little "CONSERVATIVES" know
about business.

Your problem is, you hate conservatives for everything.  You can't
have a rational discussion about the success or failure of the Volt
unless you bring politics into it.

what rational discussion? your type has little or no understandings
about how business works. you merely hate.

Ah, proves my point.  What is "my type"?  I'm not under either the
conservative or liberal label.  I hate no one, but it seems you hate
conservatives, at least the extreme right.

then whats the point about the obsession over the volt. its simply
R&D, which has a high investment up front, and perhaps a payoff at the
end. its simple business stuff. the real reason for the obsession is
of course hate, and of course the average "CONSERVATIVE" has no real
understanding of simple things like basic math.

Post by Ed Pawlowski
I run a business.  In my career, I've owned or run a few with good
success.

good for you. so have i. i own copyrights and patents. some i crafted
with my own hands. i ship the stuff all over the world. its a small
market, but i make a living. i understand risk. i am not driven by a
"CONSERVATIVE" idiotology and stupidity.
to go green will require massive investments, and a lot of it will be
failures, but in the end, there could be a huge payoff. what we are
witnessing today, is a "CONSERVATIVE" obsession with fear, fear of
change, fear of the unknown, fear of something different, a lack of
comprehension skills, and of course, stupidity, bigotry, racism, and
hatreds.

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by Nickname unavailable
the republican party is simply running out of al bundy, homer
simpson, archie bunker types. people so stupid, they cannot even do
basic math, let alone come in from the rain.

Not my problem, I'm not a Republican.

then if you are not. you will simply ignore the poster for what it
is.

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by Nickname unavailable
the constitution of the united states was a anti-conservative
statement by the majority of the founders of the united states of
america.

I though we were discussing the success and/or failure of the Volt.
See, you can't discuss automotive topics, you have to go to politics.
If you want to discuss the Volt or GM in general, please continue. If
you want to discuss politics, I'm not interested.

the poster crossed posted to a economics newsgroup. if the volt
fails, the technology involved, may open the doors for further
technologies.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
if the volt
fails, the technology involved, may open the doors for further
technologies.

See, take the political BS out of the discussion and we can agree on
something.

[Nickname unavailable]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

 if the volt
fails, the technology involved, may open the doors for further
technologies.

See, take the political BS out of the discussion and we can agree on
something.

the original poster had it loaded with "CONSERVATIVE" bullshit. i
went and looked at one today, nice care, nice concept, and even if it
a sales failure, it opens the door to more technological advances, as
with many prototypes. so its not a wash.

[Tom]

Post by Ed Pawlowski
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

Post by Nickname unavailable
why do "CONSERVATIVES" lie so much?:not only do they lie/they have no
real comprehension skills about product development and costs:how a
business spreads those costs over time:Why GM Is Not Losing $49k Per
Chevy Volt

That may or may not be true. Personally, I think the number is wrong,
but I don't have inside costs and forecasts to say for sure either
way.

Post by Nickname unavailable
http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/reuters-math-fail-why-gm-not-losing-49k-chevy-volt
Reuters' Math Fail! Why GM Is Not Losing $49k Per Chevy Volt
The
typical comment goes something like this: “They’re losing $50K per
car, but don’t worry, they’ll make it up in volume!!! HAW HAW HAW!”
Um. Yeah. Actually, that is how development costs work. We thought you
guys understood business?

Correct, but you have to have the volume. So far, lots of development
cost, very little volume. Actual sales less than half the
projections.
If the projects are for more than double the sales, there are
significant cost not being carried by the low volume. Either GM did a
poor job of forecasting, or someone inflated expectations to scam
investors. That has been done millions of time both by conservatives
and liberals in all sort of business deals. .
Right now. all anyone can really say is "we'll see". Lets revisit
this in a year or two. Right now, it is a poor showing anyway.

GM is expanding the tech into future products, probably only way to meet
obunglers cafe standards, they are already expanded to opel, and holden
and a future caddy, and also going to build the impala and overflow
malibus in the same building which will lower costs for all,
i think it will work
Gm never said they would make money in the first generation and maybe
the second also, everyone says the nbrs arnt there, i think gm is
holding back production so as to not lose more money on ist gen but get
it out to the field for what its worth.