Chevy Volt Production Put On Five Week Hold

[VaYank5150]

Supply and demand?

Where was that mentality when the company was going under and the federalis stepped in and bailed them out, declaring victory.

Where is the victory??

GM posts record earnings for 2011 - Feb. 16, 2012

 

[Conservative]

Supply and demand?

Sure supply and demand but if GM is doing such a good job why can't they transfer those people to other departments until they get the bugs worked out of the volt?

maybe because those 1300 workers are at the Volt plant, and there isn't another plant to send them to that actually NEEDS 1300 more people, even temporarily?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Supply and demand?

Where was that mentality when the company was going under and the federalis stepped in and bailed them out, declaring victory.

Where is the victory??

GM posts record earnings for 2011 - Feb. 16, 2012

How does a company that took taxpayer money to continue it's operations have "record earnings"?

That's like my father giving me a whole bunch of money for me to live on and I write a news column about how successful I've been on my own.

 

[wjmacguffin]

The layoffs are coming because the Volt's sales have dropped quickly and suddenly. This is because of erroneous reports that Volt's are unsafe, a meme propagated by conservatives and their media friends. Why? I guess (but this is only opinion) that conservatives hate Obama's push for electric vehicles and alternative energy sources.

As to why the workers couldn't be transferred, it's probably because these layoffs are temporary. Production of the Volt is on hold for 5 weeks to let demand catch up with supply. Not saying it's right, just explaining a possibility.

 

[VaYank5150]

Where was that mentality when the company was going under and the federalis stepped in and bailed them out, declaring victory.

Where is the victory??

GM posts record earnings for 2011 - Feb. 16, 2012

How does a company that took taxpayer money to continue it's operations have "record earnings"?

That's like my father giving me a whole bunch of money for me to live on and I write a news column about how successful I've been on my own.

Do us all a favor and Google the definition of "earnings" and then read the story I linked and try very hard to actually THINK for a change before you put your foot in your mouth, again. Analogy FAIL.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, it is not an analogy fail. The company would have failed without federal help. The real failure here is GM.

 

[wjmacguffin]

How does a company that took taxpayer money to continue it's operations have "record earnings"?

That's like my father giving me a whole bunch of money for me to live on and I write a news column about how successful I've been on my own.

Earnings are not the same as overall profitability nor wealth. "Record earnings" mean they are earning more profit in a set time period (probably annually but I'm not sure) than any other similar time period. This does not include the public funds loaned to them. In fact, you can have record earnings and still lose money. I'm not saying that is happening in this case, just pointing out your analogy doesn't work.

 

[VaYank5150]

No, it is not an analogy fail. The company would have failed without federal help. The real failure here is GM.

Nice try, genius. Just apologize for talking out of your ass. Everyone has already read your post, Forrest...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I know what earnings are. And yet you seem to miss the part where GM would have went under without federali money. I don't understand how one can dodge that and bolster them with "record earnings". They already failed.

 

[wjmacguffin]

No, it is not an analogy fail. The company would have failed without federal help. The real failure here is GM.

Sorry, but your analogy was incorrect. Whether the company would have failed or not has nothing to do with your contention about "record earnings" and believing the government's loan was part of those earnings. You are now changing your argument, most likely because you know you failed. By all means, keep changing things until you get it right.

Although, that would mean you'd have to say the loan program worked.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Supply and demand?

Where was that mentality when the company was going under and the federalis stepped in and bailed them out, declaring victory.

Where is the victory??

GM posts record earnings for 2011 - Feb. 16, 2012

And obama let them

 

[peach174]

The layoffs are coming because the Volt's sales have dropped quickly and suddenly. This is because of erroneous reports that Volt's are unsafe, a meme propagated by conservatives and their media friends. Why? I guess (but this is only opinion) that conservatives hate Obama's push for electric vehicles and alternative energy sources.

As to why the workers couldn't be transferred, it's probably because these layoffs are temporary. Production of the Volt is on hold for 5 weeks to let demand catch up with supply. Not saying it's right, just explaining a possibility.

No it's not because of reports that the volt is unsafe.
It because the car costs too much and even with a 7,000.00 tax break, it is still too expensive.
Mainly it's because President Obama is pushing for the car.
This car is electric and what do the majority of electric plants use? Coal.
Then this administration's EPA is shutting down coal mines all over the country.
The car isn't selling because the American public isn't stupid.
Obama is pushing cars from gas to electric and then the
EPA shuts down fuel for the electric cars.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, another Obama gazillion $$ taxpayer funded exploit into lala land down in flames....

 

[wjmacguffin]

The layoffs are coming because the Volt's sales have dropped quickly and suddenly. This is because of erroneous reports that Volt's are unsafe, a meme propagated by conservatives and their media friends. Why? I guess (but this is only opinion) that conservatives hate Obama's push for electric vehicles and alternative energy sources.

As to why the workers couldn't be transferred, it's probably because these layoffs are temporary. Production of the Volt is on hold for 5 weeks to let demand catch up with supply. Not saying it's right, just explaining a possibility.

No it's not because of reports that the volt is unsafe.
It because the car costs too much and even with a 7,000.00 tax break, it is still too expensive.
Mainly it's because President Obama is pushing for the car.
This car is electric and what do the majority of electric plants use? Coal.
Then this administration's EPA is shutting down coal mines all over the country.
The car isn't selling because the American public isn't stupid.
Obama is pushing cars from gas to electric and then the
EPA shuts down fuel for the electric cars.

Oh, I agree that electric cars are not worth it yet. The footprint of the battery alone makes it worse than regular cars. Other electric and hybrid cars are selling well enough, so what's the difference between them and the Volt? One difference: false reports that the Volt is unsafe.

As for Obama shutting down coal plants, any links? Evidence? I know the EPA is forcing coal plants to pollute less but I don't know of any shut down by the EPA.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Supply and demand?

Wait, now you care about supply and demand? Why didn't you when the company was going under?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, it is not an analogy fail. The company would have failed without federal help. The real failure here is GM.

Sorry, but your analogy was incorrect. Whether the company would have failed or not has nothing to do with your contention about "record earnings" and believing the government's loan was part of those earnings. You are now changing your argument, most likely because you know you failed. By all means, keep changing things until you get it right.

Although, that would mean you'd have to say the loan program worked.

They would not have had any earnings if they had been forced to liquidate the insolvent business.


Definition of 'Earnings'
The amount of profit that a company produces during a specific period, which is usually defined as a quarter (three calendar months) or a year. Earnings typically refer to after-tax net income.Ultimately, a business's earnings are the main determinant of its share price, because earnings and the circumstances relating to them can indicate whether the business will be profitable and successful in the long run.

Read more: Earnings Definition | Investopedia

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, it is not an analogy fail. The company would have failed without federal help. The real failure here is GM.

Sorry, but your analogy was incorrect. Whether the company would have failed or not has nothing to do with your contention about "record earnings" and believing the government's loan was part of those earnings. You are now changing your argument, most likely because you know you failed. By all means, keep changing things until you get it right.

Although, that would mean you'd have to say the loan program worked.

They would not have had any earnings if they had been forced to liquidate the insolvent business.


Definition of 'Earnings'
The amount of profit that a company produces during a specific period, which is usually defined as a quarter (three calendar months) or a year. Earnings typically refer to after-tax net income.Ultimately, a business's earnings are the main determinant of its share price, because earnings and the circumstances relating to them can indicate whether the business will be profitable and successful in the long run.

Read more: Earnings Definition | Investopedia

Beat me to it, he's talking up supply and demand when there was no demand for GM cars, and their supply would've ended when they went belly up.

But now, and i'm sure it has nothing to do with trying to promote Obama in individual circumstances, he cares about supply and demand.

 

[wjmacguffin]

No, it is not an analogy fail. The company would have failed without federal help. The real failure here is GM.

Sorry, but your analogy was incorrect. Whether the company would have failed or not has nothing to do with your contention about "record earnings" and believing the government's loan was part of those earnings. You are now changing your argument, most likely because you know you failed. By all means, keep changing things until you get it right.

Although, that would mean you'd have to say the loan program worked.

They would not have had any earnings if they had been forced to liquidate the insolvent business.


Definition of 'Earnings'
The amount of profit that a company produces during a specific period, which is usually defined as a quarter (three calendar months) or a year. Earnings typically refer to after-tax net income.Ultimately, a business's earnings are the main determinant of its share price, because earnings and the circumstances relating to them can indicate whether the business will be profitable and successful in the long run.

Read more: Earnings Definition | Investopedia

Sigh. Let me walk you through it.

Your analogy: "[Saying GM had record earnings is] like my father giving me a whole bunch of money for me to live on and I write a news column about how successful I've been on my own." Let's break down your analogy: GM claiming record earnings = Getting money from Dad and saying you're successful.

The first half of the analogy (the GM part) does not include the loan but includes profits from sales. The second half of the analogy (the Dad/son part) includes the loan and does not include any profits from sales. Therefore, the analogy is false on two accounts.

Is that clear enough for you to understand? If not, I'll aim a little lower next time.

 

[peach174]

The layoffs are coming because the Volt's sales have dropped quickly and suddenly. This is because of erroneous reports that Volt's are unsafe, a meme propagated by conservatives and their media friends. Why? I guess (but this is only opinion) that conservatives hate Obama's push for electric vehicles and alternative energy sources.

As to why the workers couldn't be transferred, it's probably because these layoffs are temporary. Production of the Volt is on hold for 5 weeks to let demand catch up with supply. Not saying it's right, just explaining a possibility.

No it's not because of reports that the volt is unsafe.
It because the car costs too much and even with a 7,000.00 tax break, it is still too expensive.
Mainly it's because President Obama is pushing for the car.
This car is electric and what do the majority of electric plants use? Coal.

Then this administration's EPA is shutting down coal mines all over the country.
The car isn't selling because the American public isn't stupid.
Obama is pushing cars from gas to electric and then the
EPA shuts down fuel for the electric cars.

Oh, I agree that electric cars are not worth it yet. The footprint of the battery alone makes it worse than regular cars. Other electric and hybrid cars are selling well enough, so what's the difference between them and the Volt? One difference: false reports that the Volt is unsafe.

As for Obama shutting down coal plants, any links? Evidence? I know the EPA is forcing coal plants to pollute less but I don't know of any shut down by the EPA.

U.S. rolls out tough rules on coal plant pollution | Reuters

"The bottom line: this rule is the most expensive air rule that EPA has ever proposed in terms of direct costs," Segal said. "It is certainly the most extensive intervention into the power market and job market that EPA has ever attempted to implement."

Rob Patrylak, a managing director of Black & Veatch, a consulting, engineering and construction company, said of all the EPA clean air rules, the MATS rule will force the largest number of coal-plant retirements. Unlike other recent clean air standards, such the Cross State Air Pollution Rule that seeks to cut emissions that move downwind from power plants, the MATS rule does not allow utilities to trade pollution credits to comply.

"MATS is really what's driving the decision," for companies to shut some of their coal plants, he said.

Energy analysts have said the EPA's mercury rule, along with the cross state, cooling water and coal ash rules could shut up to 70,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation.

Our Commitment to a Clean Energy Future: Clean Coal Technology | America's Power

 

[wjmacguffin]

U.S. rolls out tough rules on coal plant pollution | Reuters

"The bottom line: this rule is the most expensive air rule that EPA has ever proposed in terms of direct costs," Segal said. "It is certainly the most extensive intervention into the power market and job market that EPA has ever attempted to implement."

Rob Patrylak, a managing director of Black & Veatch, a consulting, engineering and construction company, said of all the EPA clean air rules, the MATS rule will force the largest number of coal-plant retirements. Unlike other recent clean air standards, such the Cross State Air Pollution Rule that seeks to cut emissions that move downwind from power plants, the MATS rule does not allow utilities to trade pollution credits to comply.

"MATS is really what's driving the decision," for companies to shut some of their coal plants, he said.

Energy analysts have said the EPA's mercury rule, along with the cross state, cooling water and coal ash rules could shut up to 70,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation.

Our Commitment to a Clean Energy Future: Clean Coal Technology | America's Power

Thanks! According to the article, the quotes you provided about coal plant closures are from coal plant industry insiders and consultants, who have a vested interest in fighting MATS. In that same article, companies with nuclear and gas plants support MATS. Sounds to me like this isn't about Obama trying to shut down coal plants as it is coal plant companies trying to protect their profits.