kpc655

if you want to thank someone for the economy of the 90's, you can thank bill gates 100 times more than you can thank clinton. clinton accomplished mild medicare reform..thats about the only thing he did right. The economy perfomred well DESPITE his actions, not because of them.

Some good posts. John Stossel (spelling?) did a good story on just how much we are taxed..this is a while back. Starting from when you wake up (electricity, property), to when you shower (water) cook (lp gas), drive (gasoling, sales tax on auto), work (income tax, social security)...etc. you get the idea. If you add it up, we are all basically working for the government for half the year. You can google that too for some calculators...you can all celebrate your tax freedom day then every year..usually some time in May. FYI..i saw someone mention stagflation. Here's the official definition.. "A condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment - a time of stagnation - accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation. Stagflation occurs when the economy isn't growing but prices are, which is not a good situation for a country to be in. This happened to a great extent during the 1970s, when world oil prices rose dramatically, fueling sharp inflation in developed countries. For these countries, including the U.S., stagnation increased the inflationary effects." Lastly...since the republicans got donkey punched a few weeks ago..here's a little humor. Without any paperwork or for any reason, this old black man everyone called Grandpa started getting a $500 check every month. So Grandpa and Grandma started cashing them. It turns out the government made a mistake with the address; the checks were intended for another person with the exact same name. Grandpa then received a notice that he had to pay back $6,000. Visibly upset, he complained to his grandson, an accountant. His grandson asked: "Grandpa, didn't you wonder why you were receiving checks for doing absolutely nothing?" Grandpa answered: "I just assumed the Democrats were back in power." Republicans..democrats...its all the same nowadays. They talk a different talk, but they walk the same walk. They are there for 1 reason..to get reelected. Time for term limits!

"Kpc655 are you a NEO con?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????" Whats a neo con? I would prefer not to label myself...i dont think it really matters in the end. But if it makes you feel better you could call me a JFK democrat, a reagon republican, a libertarian...or an american worried about my kids. I want to pass them a competitive open economy, not one where we cling to uncompetitive industries. As far as the success of our system..i think it speaks for itself. If you think there is any other country or system in this world that outperforms the US, thats just simply not true. "unfair competition" is never good and the field should be level...but that really only means the open access to markets and free flow of goods. it doesnt mean everyone, everywhere gets paid the same, wealth is redistributed and jobs are gaurunteed. Thats got a name too..its called communism. GTBCANADIAN...Are you a COMMUNIST?????????????????????????'' sorry, couldnt help it. i live in a country where stores close at 6:30 every night, 4 on saturday and they dont even open on sunday. they have the most archaic labor laws...and their economy suffers for it. Every company i've worked with here views the US as the holy grail of markets. If we lose that status in the global economy..we've got big problems.

Allot of interesting comments...This one caught my attention. "When you continue to bring in off shore auto makers or what ever business that pays less wages, they will have a negative influence on the economy. It's the spending of the money by the working people that creates comsumer demand, comsumer demand in turns create business opportunities, and that creats jobs." GTBCANADIAN He's right, partly...perhaps a closet supply sider? Anyway....consumer dollars aren't controllable. They will go, where they will go. If they favor one product over another, the "loser" has the chose..compete or move on. Thats what we see today. If we are to belive the above statement then consumer demand is better being met by Toyota and Honda right now then Ford and GM. Consumers on the hole are winning, they are getting what they want...but at the expense of the competing "local" industry. To blame and try to somehow raise the price of the "imports" through tarrifs, taxes etc. would only hurt consumers. The "domestics" (term used loosely) must compete. If we take a protectionist approach it may help in the short term, but long term we must have a flexible economy where resources including people can easily move. The fact is, industries do start and die all the time. I cant imagine anyone realistically arguing that the US should try to restart a domestic textile industry (for example)....we couldnt compete. Besides, all those people and money are better spent in areas of the economy where we can compete/lead the world. The US has created the following industries (in my opinion) Automotive Aeronautic Space Electronics Computer/IT Web ..the list goes on We need to keep focusing on creating new industries, products etc..not infinitely trying to prop up old ones where we can no longer compete. Just my humble opinion...I've seen how some other countries fall victim to "protecting" jobs and industries (i live 1hr south of germany)..it doesnt work. No one could argue that the german economic model isa good one (not even the german's i work with). They all long to go to america..lets keep it that way!

I think Ford's biggest hurdle in returning to profitability and stable ground is demonstrated right here on this board. Everyone at all levels is far too busy pointing their finger at the management, the lineworkers, the japanese, the chinese, the government...everyone else but themselves. If Ford can't get over their infighting, EVERYONE will be out of a job. and that is far worse for all of use then a slimmed down ford that only sells 50% of what it used too. Granted I don't work for Ford, I'm not sure how many of the poster's here actually do...but my company is closely tied to Ford and it pains me to see so many good, smart people at all levels unable to face reality and work together. Their failure or success will indirectly effect allot more people.

I think the better question is "why dont people buy ford's like they used too". Ok, its almost the same question...but the focus from Ford needs to be on consumers and what they want, not "selling vehicles". I remember an argument i had in a class a few years ago about what a company's goal is....to make money or to get customers. The results (should) be the same, but how you get there and the sustainabilty is much different depending on your approach. Ford can double their volume if they half the price, but that's not sustainable. Ford (and GM)'s sales are far to price sensitive when compared to their competition. When customer walk into a showroom and look at nothing but price, and maybe fuel mileage, you've lost the battle. When Ford and GM start offering more value to the consumer via better quality (Real or percieved), design, better accessories, better customer service, fuel economy etc etc...then they will stop their sales slide. The guy on this board with the broken control arm is a perfect example of poor customer service and how far that information can get!

Kill Merc, bundle Jag with land rover and dump em. Couldn't have said it better myself..although i tried. http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...=4628&st=40 Ford's got its hand in too many cookie jars. Between Ford, Volvo AM and Mazda they've got plenty of models to compete. Ford lacks focus due to trying to juggle too many vehicles and brands.

Some interesting points...but if you consider ford (and GM's) approach over the last 20+ years its been exactly as many of you say. They tried to develop endless niche brands and vehicles. Unfortunately its landed them where they are today. I'm not saying they shouldn't target as many audiences as possible, but i think they should do it through one strong brand with more vehicles. People arent gonna buy a dressed up fusions even if it has a mercury badge on it because they know that in the end, its a dressed up fusion. I think the state of the industry today is evidence that this is the wrong approach. Consider the inherint compromises ford has to make with a new vehicle. Some designer comes up with a new sedan...first they have to compromise and split the car into different versions for different brands. The ford version cant be to fancy...and the lincoln version cant be too sporty..etc. etc. Then they make the option packages and further complicate (add cost) to the situation. I say focus on designing one vehicle with enough options to satisfy your audience then upsell. Less brands means - less dealers, less service parts, less suppliers, less manufacturing costs, less engineering support, less complexity...the list goes on. If it were me..i'd shutter Mercury. Package jag and land rover together and sell them off...could be a nice cash infusion if the right buyer was found. they could really play off the brit's patriotism! Keep AM..that V8 is a killer car but then again i'm not an impartial judge of AM due to my work situation. Volvo i'd keep because they've done an excellent job of branding them as safe vehicles and here in Europe anyway they've got a great following. I could be wrong...time will tell what the winning strategy is. Toyota and Honda have succeeded by building one strong brand then leveraging it for many different models. Many here suggest that ford should try to maintain multiple brands and even more models but i think that will cause ford to lose focus and ultimately lose the battle. Sorry if this is a bit off topic from the original post! Great forums though....its interesting to see the opinions of various insiders.

Its good to see Ford finally making some progress on its turnaround. 1Get capacity in line with demand? Check 2Get manufacturing costs in line with your competition? Check Slowly but surely, and not without reluctance, ford is moving in the right direction. However i'm surprised theres not more talk of cutting some brands. Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, AM, Jaguar, Mazda, Volvo, Land Rover...did i miss any? There is little justification for supporting so many brands in this hypercompetitive market. Each brand requires marketing, HR, engineering, supply base support etc. etc. Theres allot of redundancy there. 50 years ago brand loyalty was a given. People would buy a mustang in college, graduate to a fairlane, marry into a Galaxy and then die in a continental. But today there really is no point in maintaining so many brands or redundant models. Simply, the market doesnt demand it. Do consumers care that Ford is "Bold" or Mercury is Metro Cool? No, they want a car that meets their needs (comfortable, fast, cheap..whatever those needs may be). If you benchmark the competition, the successful competition, they're maintaining 2 or 3 brands. So the point?? I think number three on the above list should be sell/shutter some brands. That will help with the first two points and allow the company to FOCUS on producing some winners instead of an endless stream of half ass attempts. GM has the same problem...far to many brands! Ford can die a slow painful death in which case everyone loses...or they can make the hard decisions now so that the company can soldier on. If you disagree...ask yourself this question. If you were to start from scratch today and make an auto company...would you fragment the company into multiple brands with similar overlapping models? or would you create one strong brand whose label models could proudly wear?

This isnt the first time it's happened with cast ford control arms. the fist GT's had a recall about this..pretty big f'up if you ask me. thats a major safety issue. imagine driving your new 160k GT down the highway at 75 mph and having the control arm snap. check around online, chances are its not the first time its happened. here's some details on the GT's part recall. I wonder if its the same supplier???? http://www.automotive.com/2005/49/ford/gt/recalls/10247.html