Cost per Car of Ads...
in [Automobiles]
|
From: in2dadark on 6 Apr 2010 23:14 On Apr 5, 11:45 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > > news:XKKdnXyKoIh5nyfWnZ2dnUVZ_scAAAAA(a)giganews.com... > > > 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.
From: Ed Pawlowski on 7 Apr 2010 05:52 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:MNmdnSGTtc7tdibWnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> >> "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> 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.
From: dr_jeff on 7 Apr 2010 06:33 in2dadark wrote: > On Apr 5, 11:45 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: >> "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> >> news:XKKdnXyKoIh5nyfWnZ2dnUVZ_scAAAAA(a)giganews.com... >> >>> 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
From: dr_jeff on 7 Apr 2010 06:34 Ed Pawlowski wrote: > > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:MNmdnSGTtc7tdibWnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>> >>> "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> 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
From: jim beam on 7 Apr 2010 09:28
On 04/07/2010 03:34 AM, dr_jeff wrote: > Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> news:MNmdnSGTtc7tdibWnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> Ed Pawlowski wrote: >>>> >>>> "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> 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 |