A Tale Of Two Autos....

[francoHFW]

And that's with 2 trillion in bailouts. All FDR's fault LOL

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup, just another 9% retraction recession, MORON.

Well....OK, blanko.....You've dragged me into giving you another well-deserved remedial...


1. America’s greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed Woodrow Wilson who got America into World War I, ...Harding inherited the mess, in particular the post-World War I depression – almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933, that FDR inherited and prolonged. Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, in their book Out of Work (1993), noted that the magnitude of the 1920 depression "exceeded that for the Great Depression of the following decade for several quarters." The estimated gross national product plunged 24% from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million in 1920 to 4.9 million in 1921.

2. Compared to FDR, Harding had a much better understanding of how an economy works. Harding, wrote historian Robert K. Murray, in The Harding Era (1969), "always decried high taxes, government waste, and excessive governmental interference in the private sector of the economy. In February 1920, shortly after announcing his candidacy, he advocated a cut in government expenditures and stated that government ought to ‘strike the shackles from industry.’ ‘We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation,’ he said. Surprisingly, big business took very little notice of him at the time."

3. One of Harding’s campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress, April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8% of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging investment essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

4. Harding’s Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 provided a unified federal budget for the first time in American history. The act established (1) the Bureau of the Budget with a budget director responsible to the president, and (2) the General Accounting Office to help cut wasteful spending.

5. Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes were cut from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding’s policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924. For federal spending, in 1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.

6. Conspicuously absent was business-bashing that became a hallmark of FDR’s speeches. Absent, too, were New Deal–type big government programs to make it more expensive for employers to hire people, to force prices above market levels, to promote cartels and monopolies. Frederick Lewis Allen wrote, "Business itself was regarded with a new veneration. Once it had been considered less dignified and distinguished than the learned professions, but now people thought they praised a clergyman highly when they called him a good business man."

7. With Harding’s tax cuts, spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy, the gross national product rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million – a reported 6.7% of the labor force – in 1922. So, just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring 20s were underway! The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching a low of 1.8% in 1926 – an extraordinary feat. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime.
Not-So-Great Depression - Jim Powell - National Review Online



If only Democrat progressives/liberals showed any ability to learn!!!

But.....then there's you: a perfect example of that inability.




Oh....the lesson in economics and history??

You're welcome.

 

[Sunni Man]

Now PC, you really are behind the times. Ford has a hybrid plugin set to go on sale. The C-Max Energi, 20 miles as an ev, 47/47 as a hybrid. Already exceeds the 54.5 mpg mandate for 2025.

i just drove BMW's hybrid, too.

isn't it weird how the really extreme people on the right think there's something wrong with conservation?

it's kind of retarded.

Jillian the limousine liberal thinks all middle class Republicans are evil because they all can't afford to buy BMW's like she can.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Now PC, you really are behind the times. Ford has a hybrid plugin set to go on sale. The C-Max Energi, 20 miles as an ev, 47/47 as a hybrid. Already exceeds the 54.5 mpg mandate for 2025.

i just drove BMW's hybrid, too.

isn't it weird how the really extreme people on the right think there's something wrong with conservation?

it's kind of retarded.

You didn't read the thread, did you?

Note: the ROI for a hybrid JUST IS NOT THERE. The payback is in the 150,000 mile range even at $4/gallon.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Now PC, you really are behind the times. Ford has a hybrid plugin set to go on sale. The C-Max Energi, 20 miles as an ev, 47/47 as a hybrid. Already exceeds the 54.5 mpg mandate for 2025.

i just drove BMW's hybrid, too.

isn't it weird how the really extreme people on the right think there's something wrong with conservation?

it's kind of retarded.

Jillian the limousine liberal thinks all middle class Republicans are evil because they all can't afford to buy BMW's like she can.

Could afford one...but don't want one!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now PC, you really are behind the times. Ford has a hybrid plugin set to go on sale. The C-Max Energi, 20 miles as an ev, 47/47 as a hybrid. Already exceeds the 54.5 mpg mandate for 2025.

Right. That mandate is unrealistic. There are so many exceptions.
It's all nonsense. Battery technology is not progressing. People are not interested in over priced golf carts on wheels.
Look, there are other technologies out there ( Natural gas, hydrogen) that are better more efficient and cheaper. Here's the problem, they are not politically palatable.
Why? Because any fuel which can be used in autos in lieu of oil, is loaded with political land mines.
Imagine natural gas at $2.80 per therm( 1000 cubic feet) supplanting oil at $98 per barrel( 42 gals) or gasoline at $2.90 per gallon...That is a cheap clean and highly available alternative. The oil companies and of course OPEC would have none of that.
If oil were not the main fuel used in the US for autos, the OPEC nations would fall into bankruptcy. The geo political turmoil would be catastrophic.
Oil companies are among the world's largest corporations. With a much smaller market ,those firms would struggle as well.
The above reasons are give light to the fact that all of these green energy schemes are a lot of nonsense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now PC, you really are behind the times. Ford has a hybrid plugin set to go on sale. The C-Max Energi, 20 miles as an ev, 47/47 as a hybrid. Already exceeds the 54.5 mpg mandate for 2025.

47 MPG isn't nearly enough to justify a new car when you consider just how expensive the new All Electric cars are. And as PC pointed out, government subsidies push the cost even higher because WE pay the taxes for that!

My wife and I just made a trip to Boston, about 880 miles round trip, in her 5 year old Toyota Yaris. Setting the cruise control to 65 we got an average of 42 miles to the gallon. 4 cylinder, fuel injected, nothing fancy. And this "technology" has been around for at least 30 years.

My 2004 Dodge Ram 1500 V-8 gets about 18 MPG on a good day. If I were to trade that truck in for a Prius you know how long it would take (in fuel savings) to pay off the Prius?

27 years.

Who the f*ck owns a car for that long? Almost no one.

Yeah..How about that. WE have to help them buy their cars. Nice deal. NOT.

 

[thereisnospoon]

PC, you always like to crow about American exceptionalism. In reality, you are as anti-American as it gets. You folks on the right like to crow about the 'risk takers' Well PC meet a risk taker...General Motors.

And if you believe for a moment the governments of Japan, Korea and China don't pick winners and losers, you are naive. Those governments always pick their home manufacturers, and use strategies like huge subsidies to help their manufacturers capture markets and try to put American companies out of business. Japan's universal health care lowers the manufacturing costs of their car makers to around $200 per vehicle. American manufactures spend $1500 per vehicle on health care costs.

From your article...

Still, as the company wrestles with how to drive down costs and increase showroom traffic, Parks said the Volt is an important car for GM in other respects.

"It wasn't conceived as a way to make tons of money," he said. "It was a big dip in the technology pool for GM. We've learned a boatload of stuff that we're deploying on other models," Parks said. Those include the Cruze and such future cars as the 2014 Cadillac ELR hybrid.

The same risky strategy — gambling on relatively untested technology — drove massive investments by Toyota Motor Corp in the Prius hybrid and Nissan Motor Co in the Leaf electric car.

Toyota said it now makes a profit on the Prius, which was introduced in the United States in 2000 and is now in its third generation. Sales of the Prius hybrid, which comes in four different versions priced as low as $19,745, have almost doubled so far this year to 164,408.

Other such vehicles haven't done nearly as well. Nissan's pure-electric Leaf, which debuted at the same time as the Volt and retails for $36,050, has sold just 4,228 this year, while the Honda Insight, which has the lowest starting price of any hybrid in the U.S. at $19,290, has sales this year of only 4,801. The Mitsubishi i, an even smaller electric car priced from $29,975, is in even worse shape, with only 403 sales.

Toyota's unveiling of the original Prius caught U.S. automakers off guard. GM, then under the leadership of Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz, decided it needed a "leapfrog" product to tackle Toyota and unveiled the Volt concept to considerable fanfare at the 2007 Detroit auto show.

The car entered production in the fall of 2010 as the first U.S. gasoline-electric hybrid that could be recharged by plugging the car into any electrical outlet. The Obama administration, which engineered a $50-billion taxpayer rescue of GM from bankruptcy in 2009 and has provided more than $5 billion in subsidies for green-car development, praised the Volt as an example of the country's commitment to building more fuel-efficient cars.

NEXT-GENERATION CAR

GM's investment in the Volt has so far been a fraction of the $5 billion that Nissan said it is spending to develop and tool global production of the Leaf and its associated technologies and the reported $10 billion or more that Toyota has plowed into the Prius and various derivatives over the past decade.

GM is under orders from the federal government as part of the bail out to produce an Everyready car....
I find it real funny how you people rail against subsidies except when said subsidy is politically favorable to the lib template.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Volt's problem is very simple.

Based on its cost and perceived benefits, people willing to spend that amount of money are buying something else instead.

Why GM didn't learn this from market research prior to investing countless millions of dollars in R&D and factory retooling for production tells you all you need to know about their inept management.

Had they reorganized under normal bankruptcy proceedings they'd be far better positioned today for the future.

As of now there are many choices available for vehicle shoppers.
The goal of the Obama regime and all those radical enviro-nazis is to REMOVE those choices. Hence Obama's ridiculous 54MPG avg mileage mandate.

 

[thereisnospoon]

1. "A basic tenet of American capitalism is that supply precedes demand, as can be see in the case of all airports being closed down: the long lines of people unable to get to their destinations is the demand that cannot be fulfilled. This is why entrepreneurs must be given a free hand to produce, to speculate, as the building of more and more airports will lower prices, increasing demand. This is especially true in the case of new technologies.

Both high taxation and over regulation place a damper on this freedom.
“The proceeds from these speculations? the capital paid for stocks and bonds ? may seem misspent. In the long run, the results are called infrastructure, and they are what economies are built on.”

“Many European postal systems, telegraph lines and railroads were built with government money, and sometimes with insufficient capacity. But in the United States, instead of burdening taxpayers, we sell investors the equivalent of high-priced lottery tickets each time one of these technologies arrives.”
In Technology, Supply Precedes Demand - NYTimes.com


2. "The fundamentals of economic prosperity: the rule of law, property rights, freedom of contract, low marginal tax rates, the minimum regulatory barriers and costs necessary, sound money, and a stable dollar. Needless to say, “too big to fail” is a policy of failure.
Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” P. 240.



If I may broaden the topic.....the abject stupidity of the 'big government' crowd, raise your paw, BoringFriendlessGuy, is highlighted in this thread.

This is only superficially about cars....it is about the function of government.



The same problem is seen in taxation and for the same reasons:

a. conservatives see taxes as necessary to pay for legitimate government functions....as outlined in Article I, section 8, enumerated powers.

Any extra is given back in tax cuts.

b. Liberals, progressives, Democrats, socialists....see the purpose of taxation as a method of redistribution for purposes of material equality.



Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.

WOW, Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.

You just abdicated PC. You have just admitted to me and everyone on this board what I have been saying all along.

Conservatives.......
When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No PC, this is about a lot more than just cars. It is about people. We, the People. It is about saving something that can never be replaced. It is about human CAPITAL. It is about saving jobs, not only at GM, but at thousands of suppliers and sub contractors. It is about saving an industry that is part of that American exceptionalism you crow about. It is symbol and substance of our identity and our pride as a nation. You right wingers will never understand that. You folks on the right are not for less government. You have proven that every time you gain power. You absolutely LOVE government when it can wreak havoc on people's lives, when it bombs, invades, kills, maims, shuts down, arrests, incarcerates, and executes.

And you choose to deem Constitutional arguments that have gone on between philosophers, scholars, politicians, economists and polemics since the founding of our country as settled.

Conservatism is the scourge of the earth. And you are a very embodiment of that scourge.

Why is it that educating you has to fall on my shoulders?????



1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. But, clearly, the document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.




3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom!

a. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.




4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.


So...among the most dim-witted (raise your paw, BoringFriendlessGuy!) the term equality no longer means 'before the law,' but some sort of material equality.

That's what it means to you....isn't it, Boring?


So...
Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.


If the rule is broken, and the producers are penalized....property and wealth are confiscated by fiat or by taxation....

....the result is the Obama economy.

Rule #1: a nation can have prosperity or equality....not both.


Is the concept that the 'equality' in question is the absurd notion of material equality...is that too nuanced for you?

The right to equal treatment under the law has been bastardized by the left to mean all people are equal.
We are NOT equal. The law and human decency demands we be "treated" equally.
Here's an example of this "we are all equal" nonsense and unintended consequences..
A standout female golfer in an Idaho high school wants the opportunity to play golf for her school. She is a very good player. There is a girl's team and a boy's team. The state law is that each gender play on separate teams. The high school she attends is very small. This year only three other girls wanted to play on the girls team. So she now wants to play, her only alternative is to play on the boy's team. At the end of the day I have no problem with that..Provided the following conditions are met...And here comes the equality thing. 1) she plays from the same tees as the boys. Not the forward tees used by the girls....2) her presence on the boy's team does not cost a boy an opportunity to play. In other words the girl who wants to play on the boy's team cannot replace a boy, but rather simple be an additional member of the team. The problem is due to money issues there are only so many slots on the boy's team available...
Now, is it just for a boy to be denied an opportunity to play just because not enough girls wish to play on a girl's team?
This is the shit covered slippery slope liberal social engineering creates.
If it were my son denied an opportunity to play, you can bet the last dollar you ever will earn I'd be hauling that school district into court.

 

[The Professor]

The Volt's problem is very simple.

Based on its cost and perceived benefits, people willing to spend that amount of money are buying something else instead.

Why GM didn't learn this from market research prior to investing countless millions of dollars in R&D and factory retooling for production tells you all you need to know about their inept management.

Had they reorganized under normal bankruptcy proceedings they'd be far better positioned today for the future.

Agreed.

One thing about Obama, he's got a lot of chutzpah. He uses taxpayer dollars to buy a bunch of Chevy Volts and then brags about how well they are selling! The brazen asshole actually wants to get credit for this flimflam! Wait...the Obamamedia has already praised him. Damn.

 

[uscitizen]

Now PC, you really are behind the times. Ford has a hybrid plugin set to go on sale. The C-Max Energi, 20 miles as an ev, 47/47 as a hybrid. Already exceeds the 54.5 mpg mandate for 2025.

i just drove BMW's hybrid, too.

isn't it weird how the really extreme people on the right think there's something wrong with conservation?

it's kind of retarded.

You didn't read the thread, did you?

Note: the ROI for a hybrid JUST IS NOT THERE. The payback is in the 150,000 mile range even at $4/gallon.

A friend bought a Prius a few years ago. Paid right at 20K. 59 mpg.
Many others I know bought cars that cost more than 20K and get under 30 mpg.
Payback isn't there?

 

[westwall]

Silly conservatives!!! The DOLT is a huge success!! GM has limited their losses to only $49,000 per car......

But they'll make it up on volume!

 

[Ernie S.]

Many thanks to Pubs for fear mongering and politicizing the Volt, stopped sales for many months.What happened to each car costing 278k? And all those fires.? What a pile of Pubcrappe, as always. Now selling MORE than hoped....Assume the position, a-hole Pubs and silly dupes...

GM's sales projection was 40,000 units, you idiot. Now selling more than hoped at 13,500 year to date?

2831 x 12 = 33,972 or less than 85%. In reality, assuming sales stay at the 2,831 level for the rest of the year, Volt sales will be just 62% of the projection.

Yup, more than hoped. Did you even bother reading the article linked in OP?

 

[francoHFW]

Listen, SHYTTEHEADS, they wanted to sell 2k Volts a month, they're up to 3k, now the Pub Propaganda machine has stopped ragging on them.

The only reason they're "losing" 49 k is the same reason they were losing 278K earlier. It's because you're lying a-hole heroes are including R+D, which is used thoughout GM, and is thus TOTAL PUBCRAPPE, YOU STUPID PUB DUPES. GET IT YET?

They're great cars and NOT ELECTRIC, they can go FOREVER AT 40+ mpg after the juice gets low. FERCHRISSAKE you're morons. We re NOW beating Japan and China in Alternative Energy, no thanks to mindless obstructionist and their moron dupes, YOU! JFC. Assume the position, loser swine.

 

[francoHFW]

God, what a put up hatchet job article! A blog?

Listen shytteheads, if any dupes bought Volts they'd be selling great, and from the beginning. Without the tidal wave of Pubcrappe you morons, and even this Reuters BLOG, swallow whole.

 

[Ernie S.]

Listen, SHYTTEHEADS, they wanted to sell 2k Volts a month, they're up to 3k, now the Pub Propaganda machine has stopped ragging on them.

The only reason they're "losing" 49 k is the same reason they were losing 278K earlier. It's because you're lying a-hole heroes are including R+D, which is used thoughout GM, and is thus TOTAL PUBCRAPPE, YOU STUPID PUB DUPES. GET IT YET?

They're great cars and NOT ELECTRIC, they can go FOREVER AT 40+ mpg after the juice gets low. FERCHRISSAKE you're morons. We re NOW beating Japan and China in Alternative Energy, no thanks to mindless obstructionist and their moron dupes, YOU! JFC. Assume the position, loser swine.

GM's 2012 projection, what they wanted to sell was 40,000 units. That's 3,333/month, not 2,000. And WE'RE morons?

 

[blastoff]

All this Pub "equality" Pubcrappe is PURE bullshytte. We're simply following existing policy to provide existing assistance to the victims of Pub cronyism/corruption/DEPRESSION/obstruction. Idiots. DUH!

I give up. Is your other screen name LilOlLady or Truthmatters?

 

[BillyV]

1 "(Reuters) - General Motors Co sold a record number of Chevrolet Volt sedans in August — but that probably isn't a good thing for the automaker's bottom line.

2. 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, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.

3. ...There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce.

4. GM is still years away from making money on the Volt, which will soon face new competitors from Ford, Honda and others. GM's basic problem is that "the Volt is over-engineered and over-priced," said Dennis Virag, president of the Michigan-based Automotive Consulting Group.

5. But the Volt's steep $39,995 base price and its complex technology — the car uses expensive lithium-polymer batteries, sophisticated electronics and an electric motor combined with a gasoline engine — have kept many prospective buyers away from Chevy showrooms.

6. ...the technical challenges of ownership, mainly related to charging the battery. Plug-in hybrids such as the Volt still take hours to fully charge the batteries -...

7. The lack of interest in the car has prevented GM from coming close to its early, optimistic sales projections."
Insight: GM's Volt - The ugly math of low sales, high costs | Reuters


And....let's see what could have been learned from a study of history....


8. The Trabant is an automobile that was produced by former East German auto maker VEB Sachsenring Automobilwerke Zwickau in Zwickau, Sachsen. It was the most common vehicle in East Germany, and was also exported to countries both inside and outside the communist bloc. The main selling point was that it had room for four adults and luggage in a compact, light and durable shell. Despite its mediocre performance and smoky two-stroke engine, the car is regarded with derisive affection as a symbol of the failed former East Germany and of the fall of communism (in former West Germany, as many East Germans streamed into West Berlin and West Germany in their Trabants after the opening of the Berlin Wall in 1989). For advocates of capitalism it is often cited as an example of the disadvantages of centralized planning as even refueling the car required lifting the hood, filling the tank with gasoline (only 24 litres[1]), then adding two-stroke oil and shaking it back and forth to mix. It was in production without any significant changes for nearly 30 years with 3,096,099 Trabants produced in total.
Trabant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



9. ....the man who goes to buy a car in Moscow, pays for it, and is told by the salesman that he can collect it on a particular date in 10 years' time. The buyer thinks for a moment and then asks: 'Morning or afternoon?' The salesman, astonished by the question, asks: 'What difference does it make?' And the buyer answers: 'Well, the plumber is coming in the morning.'


10. Stil think it's a good idea for the brilliant folks in government to be picking the winners and losers in the economy?

This is why this post belongs in politics rather than economy or technology.

This is what Obama supporters voted for.

While I heartily agree that the government should not be picking winners and losers in the car business (or any other business), please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, stop regurgitating the stale "Volt costs $89,000 (or $250,000, or somewhere in between) per vehicle" baloney; it's hard to believe Reuters was even willing to print it. As stated in the article, the variable costs, or "the actual cost to build the Volt is estimated to be an additional $20,000 to $32,000 per vehicle." The fixed costs of production are not spread over each individual car up to the number sold as of any given date; they are spread over the expected number to be produced in the car's lifecycle. As Bob Lutz rightly states in his Forbes rebuttal "That’s like saying that a real estate company that puts up a $10 million building and has rental income of one million the first year is “losing” 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per renter." That's not how cost accounting works and is at best disingenuous, at worst dishonest; don't assist them in perpetuating this for headline value. Have a problem with the Volt's ability to create a market, or the government's subsidies? Those are legitimate. But please stop supporting and repeating the lies.
The Real Story On GM's Volt Costs - Forbes

 

[emptystep]

I take one one one 'cause you left me
And two two two for my family
And 3 3 3 for my heartache
And 4 4 4 for my headaches
And 5 5 5 for my lonely
And 6 6 6 for my sorrow
And 7 7 7 for no tomorrow
And 8 8 8 I forget what 8 was for
And 9 9 9 for a lost god
And 10 10 10 for everything everything everything everything

(everytime I see PC's numbered lists this song comes into my head )