bb62

-29% ignores Volvo, with Volvo it's -30%

Down 30%.

But the sky could be falling. Consider: 1. Paulson not agreeing to help Chrysler could be the first in a series of dominoes that crashes the ENTIRE automotive market. 2. Chrysler, not being able to megre with GM, files for bankruptcy and has to shut its doors. 3. Chrysler depends on a series of suppliers, many of which also supply to GM and Ford. 4. While some suppliers may whether the storm, and while Ford may be able to whether this crisis in supply, GM cannot and will likely also file for bankruptcy - not because of inadequate cashflow, but because of a failing supply base. 5. With GM and Chrysler in bankruptcy, the supply base now has a big effect on Ford forcing the shutdown of most Ford facilities. 6. With the remaining "big 3" supply base shut down, even the transplants will not be able to operate. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan (and others) each depend on the same supply base that supports the big 3. They are not in this alone. 7. No automotive production could lead to as many as 2 MILLION job losses within the next 6-8 months. 8. Since each automotive manufacturing job typically has a multiplier effect in the market of about 8:1, we could see as many as 15 MILLION job losses within the following 3-6 months. 9. Yes the supply base IS that weak right now. Consider this as well - Ford actually recognizes the problems that a failing Chrysler could have on the market as a whole and is considering a cash infusion TO GM by Ford Credit to purchase Chrysler. Why would this help: 1. Chryslers crash could be put on a slow rampdown. 2. The large marketing dollars put on vehicles would virtually stop allowing GM and Ford to recoop cash AND support the remaining supply base. 3. It would allow both Ford and GM to position themselves for the inevitiable upturn in business that is likely by 2010. Is the sky falling - maybe, but with decent leadership with a full understanding of the entire industry, any problems can be mitigated. Sure SE MI is likely to emerge very differently, but its better than armageddon.

I think my proposals are appropriately middle of the road. They envisage a certain degree of oversight coupled with significant restrictions on debt capital - not exactly a free-trader proposal. Ultimately the goal is traceability for the banks and responsibility for the prospective mortgage seekers. Buying houses that equate to 5 times one's income (based on 2 salaries) on the chance that the home doubles in value does not make for responsible personal finance, nor does it make for responsible banking - Both groups need to be reigned in - and if that means that home values in the Southwest crash for the next 10 years, so be it. At least there will be stability in the nations financial system because that it the surest long term requirement for growth.

Yes it is, it created an entitlement mentality that was the genesis of the entire debt culture that arose from that era. And of course Wall Street will look for every possible opportunity for profit - even utilizing the riskiest of instruments - but why give them the clay to mold their monster.

There is nothing wrong with computers, day traders, or the 90s. The problem in our economy stems from Carter era regulations forcing banks to loan to low income people so they can buy homes. In retrospect this is remarkably stupid (as most things from the Carter administration were) as it created the era of low or no downpayments on homes for the riskiest people. Much of this risk was masked by rising home prices and tapped out personal financing (credit cards). In California, home prices rose well beyond the region's incomes, yet people had unrealistic long-term expectations that added fuel to the fire. How can a region having little or no income growth expect to pay larger and larger portions of their paychecks on mortgages. This is where the government should have stepped in and where they should step in now. My proposals - you want to buy a home - 20% down - nothing less otherwise there is no incentive to do everything possible to stay there. And even a 20% reduction in home values won't make you go upside down. Second - all mortgages based on a % of the largest income earner in the house. Too many growing families base their mortgage on both their incomes and more often than not, someone can be out of work for a time (especially in down economies where unemployment can happen to many). As for banks, all banks need to understand the risk profiles of their investments. Buying these mortgage backed securities without understanding who the securities depend upon is madness. So I propose that all bundled securities require traceability to the loan originator - meaning you need to know whether the mortgage security is from a millionaire who is nearly finished paying mortgage off or a low income family that is strubbling to make payments. The same is required to corporate debt; private debt should be no different. The last thing I want to comment on is the general culture of the nation. Instead of bashing Bush (who has made many mistakes) or somehow thinking that his actions could drive you to vote for the leftists. Consider that it is the whole leftist 60s "equality" philosophy that has driven people to view themselves as no different than anyone more wealthy than themselves and thus driving unafforable spending. The founders viewed equality in terms of ability to improve one's personal situation - not on equality of outcomes. It is that view of equality of outcomes that has early education focused on children's games with no winners (don't want to hurt anyones self esteem) to government preventing anyone from losing - thus driving massive financial debt and risk into the curture to keep up those appearances.

In rough order of purchase/lease: 1965 Chevrolet Corvair Monza Convertible 1973 Chevrolet Vega 1979 Crossle 35f 1964 Chevrolet Corvette 327/365HP 1984 Volkswagen GTI 1995 Ford Contour V6 MT 1967 Chevrolet Corvette 427/435HP (currently owned) 1996 Ford Contour V6 MT 1997 Ford Taurus 1998 Ford Taurus 1999 Ford Taurus 2000 Ford Taurus 2001 Ford Focus 2003 Ford Focus 2004 Ford Focus 2005 Mazda 6i MT (currently owned and daily driver) 1995 Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 (currently owned) My least favorite car has to be the last Taurus I owned. It was a bucket of bolts - harsh driving and poor quality - hard to believe considering the prior Tauri were very good. The second worst car was the Vega - you could literally watch the thing rust - but it was a surprisingly good handling car for the time. I never had any problems with the engine because it had steel sleeves in the block. The Corvettes I own are toys and the Crossle was a Formula Ford which I campaigned in the early/mid 1980s. Among my most favorite daily driving cars include the VW GTI. That car was so tossable around corners and even with only 90HP could hang with muscle cars (and blow them away around the corners). I loved my 95 Contour - I felt like it could do it all - 27MPG (with the 2.5L V6 no less), stout acceleration, competant handling, and a terrific interior. I also really like my current Mazda 6 - far better from both a handling and FE perspective than any of its Ford cousins.

Lew Veraldi did not oversee the Explorer program. Lew was the VP of Car Product Development from his Taurus days to the end of his Ford tenure. Ed Hagenlocker was widely hailed as responsible for the Explorer program. Ed was VP of Truck Product Development during that timeframe.

The Firestone debacle had nothing to do with the Ford "momentum". The real problem for Ford was the inability to develop products that were in anyway bold or exciting. In 1999, Ford also made the decision to mostly abandon cars for trucks as their primary source of cash flow. Some executives in Ford even seriously thought of dropping cars entirely and making Ford a truck only company. The argument was that since trucks were where the profits were coming from, that's where the investment dollars should go. Ford executives sincerely believed that they could never build quality cars like Toyota or Honda - THEY BELIEVED THIS! Wolfgang Reizle was hired in the late 90s to run the PAG group, which then included Lincoln. Wolfgang became famous for his revamping and revitalization of BMW. Wolfgang's proposals for the PAG group were bold and expensive but whould have put PAG in the forefront of the world's luxury vehicles. Virtually every one of Wolfgang's plans were shot down because Ford was afraid of spending the necessary dollars. Now those same brands are either sold or morbund. The final nail in the Ford Planning coffin was when they eliminated planning as a career path and instead made it a pass through organization for engineers. Engineers do not plan for vehicles very well. They don't have the training or the time interacting between all the necessary functions to deliver good product. That is a good reason why so many Ford products in the last 8 years have been boring and staid.

It's worse than that. The "ratio" they calculate uses line assembly workers as a surrogate for the entire company's content level. The 80K workers for Ford given their level of sales is way overstated for their capacity utilization. Ford really needs to cut out nearly a third more of their UAW headcount to become competitive. Second, the assembly jobs don't take into account the bulk of the content in the supplied components. In the cost structure of any vehicle the assembly plant labor only accounts for about 11% of the cost. Engineering accounts for about 13%, profits from 8-15% based on the vehicle and the rest is purchased components. And the purchased components for the imports is NOT radically different than that of the domestics. This is what the purchasing department of F/GM/C have been driving to achieve as well.

This is why its difficult arguing with people who are stupid. 1. My initial supposition was for those posers who really don't need a truck (which are most of the truck buyers out there). I fully support the need for any person who needs a truck to buy a domestic for his or her trade. 2. Your argument is not valid because if the hypothetical Mr. F150 died tomorrow, it would only subtract from the incremental fuel usage and not from the base level of fuel used in this country. This is the mistake most people make confusing an "accounted" look versus an "incremental" look. And since both refined gasoline and the base crude oil are both being imported now, it is the effect on the margin that defines the requirement to use the entire $4.00 per gallon number. 3. Which is why I cut the numbers down for the Civic and why I inflated the F150. I actually used to do these calculations for Ford when Ford made the CV/GM an import. Those number calculated by the "Level Playing Field" are completely bogus. 4. Japan is our ally from every possible perspective. They are a G8 member who have ulitized their excess cash to support US position for the last 25 years. The Japanese are very skittish about any appearance of militarism given their behavior in WW2 and usually just allow their military to support logistical requirements rather than any combat force structure. When the active military thrusts of the initial phase of the war were over, the Japanese felt they had no more role to play.

Boy is this reasoning stupid. Let's consider what the effect is on the economy if Mr. "I'm Buying an F150 even if all I need is a Civic sized vehicle" continues to use his F150 instead of utilizing an economy car - which is what most people can get by with if pressed. What would the effect be to the American economy if an F150 is compared to a Honda Civic... F150 - Let's assume a medium level of content to bring the price to about $20K. With 150K miles driving in the life of the vehicle and about 15 mpg, that's 10,000 gallon utilized in the life of the vehicle. At an average of $4.00 per gallon, that's $40,000 spent on gas. Civic - Also about $20K in EX trim (with most of the bells and whistles) and at least 30 mpg. With 150K of driving (both the F150 and the Civic can easily exceed this number theoretically), and using the same cost per gallon, the Civic driver only utilizes $20,000 in gas. Let's assume that for the sake of argument that the F150 is 100% American made (It's not but it is an assumption), and let's assume that the Civic is 50% American made (It's listed at 70% but let's be conservative). Consider that the marginal purchase of gasoline is a direct increase in the transfer of funds oversea, this means that Mr F150 is exporting $40,000 in American capital overseas while Mr. Civic is only exporting $30,000 in American capital overseas. Mr. Civic must thus be MORE PATROITIC than Mr. F150 if patriotism is measured by keeping American funds in the country. Furthermore, of the funds that are transported overseas, the Civic sends $10,000 to a country that is our ally whereas the entire amount of funding exported overseas by Mr. F150 is going to countries that don't like us. So who is more patriotic here.................?

One thing that appears to be constant is Ford's complete ineptitude with how they are handling these departures. Many of the people being let go are people who have long years of service (often with 30 years) and they are just being shown the door. While I agree that Ford has to let people go, for many of these long term and successful employees, you could at least allow them to take a "victory lap" and say goodbye to their teammates and perhaps have an going away luncheon, but no, it's out the door without so much as a thank you for your time. This process has had the people at Ford in a state of near panic for what seems like years right now. Management can say that this would be the last time, but they’ve said that for a long time. Cuts have been underway since the early Nasser days and have been a nearly yearly experience. If ever there was a chance at reengineering Ford, the “Pavlov’s dogs” syndrome that has occupied most of Ford’s employees has probably ruined that for pretty much all of North America. I think that Mullaly probably senses this and realizes that the product revolution will need to come from overseas. He does seem to have some good people helping him. Kuzak should be a rock of stability (for his mature sense management style and even manner) for those left.

Can you eMail them to me?

Anyway you can publish this list?