Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Manufacturer\'s\s+Profits\s+at\s+Buyer\'s\s+Expense\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Manufacturer\'s\s+Profits\s+at\s+Buyer\'s\s+Expense\s*$/: 29 ]

Total 29 documents matching your query.

1. Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: "NSippel" <nsippel@mindspring.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 20:10:39 -0500; Though you all might be interested in this. Ran on msnbc web site today. "According to Deutsche Banc s auto analyst Rod Lache, on average, the automakers make $5,500 more off of every mid-size SUV th; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00127.html (8,189 bytes)
2. RE: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: "Rick Guynn" <rguynn@houston.rr.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 20:37:29 -0600; Companies are in the business of making money. If people are willing to pay the prices, that's what they will charge. There is no reason why they should be ashamed of trying to make as much money as; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00130.html (9,397 bytes)
3. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Paul Root <proot@iaces.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:10:38 -0600; That's the problem with something getting popular. People who use a vehicle for it's intended purpose suffer when posers and wannabes get their mitts into something. The pickup truck is no longer a t; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00138.html (9,095 bytes)
4. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: "David Breneman" <idcb@airborne.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:40:17 -0800 (PST); As someone who just had to purchase a new evil dolphin-choking SUV because my old evil spotted-owl-maiming SUV had 250,000 miles on it, I took advantage of GM's offer to pay 0% interest on a 5-year l; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00148.html (9,281 bytes)
5. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Howard gentry <zymmer4@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:51:54 -0800 (PST); beats the alternative. Howard 1976 MG-B 1974 MGBgt __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com /; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00149.html (9,355 bytes)
6. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: N3KKE@aol.com; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:03:41 EST; I imagine the civil servants and schoolmarms who drive Honda Civics should be, upon reflection, grateful for the riceboys who give their strength-through-joy cars a resale value north of zero. That i; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00150.html (9,076 bytes)
7. RE: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Chuck Renner <crenner@dynalivery.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:13:03 -0600; Uh, they're making that much more for several reasons: 1) Volume: the best selling vehicles in the US have been pickups for the last few decades. SUV's like the Explorer share many components with t; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00151.html (10,213 bytes)
8. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Barrie Robinson <barrier@bconnex.net>; Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:18:57 -0800; I am reluctant to start up the SUV thread again but I just have to ask two questions. Why is it that 50% of vehicles on the road are bright and shiny SUVs, of which 99% have only one person, the driv; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00152.html (11,044 bytes)
9. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: "Paul T. Root" <proot@horton.iaces.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:00:02 -0600; But the reasoning behind trucks having a lower CAFE rating are no longer valid for whick 98% of the trucks are being used. And that is as a passenger vehicle. I bought a pretty much base Mazda Navajo; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00155.html (11,498 bytes)
10. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@attbi.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 11:19:15 -0800; The point is that it ISN'T free enterprise -- it's a result of a distorted regulatory environment creating an uneven playing field. SUVs by passing as "light trucks" are exploiting a regulatory looph; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00158.html (10,226 bytes)
11. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: "David Breneman" <idcb@airborne.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:33:25 -0800 (PST); Max Heim SEZ - (With deletions...) If it defies reason and public interest, then why is the public voting, with their pocketbooks, against such regulated vehicles, and for SUVs? If there's anything s; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00159.html (10,013 bytes)
12. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: "Paul T. Root" <proot@horton.iaces.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:38:57 -0600; Exactly, I'm trying hard not to buy an SUV because it sends the wrong message. My wife won't do the minivan thing (neither would I) but we need more space. We need a Station wagon. Up until recently,; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00160.html (11,212 bytes)
13. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: N3KKE@aol.com; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:15:30 EST; Promotion can't make people buy anything they don't want. The Edsel was promoted out the wazoo, and the public hated it, and it went away. Remember New Coke? How about this: find a way to make it pay; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00162.html (9,516 bytes)
14. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@attbi.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:24:57 -0800; Actually, I think carmakers are starting to "get it" regarding station wagons. There are more available now then have been for many years. Ford, Volvo, BMW, Mazda, Subaru, Toyota, VW, Suzuki, and man; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00163.html (10,252 bytes)
15. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@attbi.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:20:23 -0800; RE Reason: why is the government essentially subsidizing one class of vehicles versus another? This is not the purpose of regulation in a rational system. Unlike you, I do not dispute the value of ap; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00164.html (12,042 bytes)
16. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@attbi.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:52:11 -0800; The point is that it can make them want something they don't need (examples too numerous to mention, but 4x4 capability in a street vehicle in a warm climate is a good example). -- Max Heim '66 MGB G; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00166.html (9,809 bytes)
17. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: "David Breneman" <idcb@airborne.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:42:56 -0800 (PST); Hi, Max - I'll attempt to put my gloss on your points, then I'll leave this thread to others, as I'll be away from my terminal the rest of the day. Max Heim SEZ - How are SUVs (the vehicles I assume; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00171.html (13,932 bytes)
18. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Barrie Robinson <barrier@bconnex.net>; Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:15:13 -0800; The great unwashed vote with their pocketbooks? Now all we have to do is get them to be unselfish, resistant to consumerism, and act like the planet is finite. Regards Barrie Barrie Robinson - barrie; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00175.html (9,944 bytes)
19. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: N3KKE@aol.com; Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:38:56 EST; Max explained: need (examples What made you want your LBC? -Wendell Hall '72 B /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool /// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00176.html (9,275 bytes)
20. Re: Manufacturer's Profits at Buyer's Expense (score: 1): Author: Max Heim <mvheim@attbi.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:42:18 -0800; OK, let's just say I entirely disagree with everything you said and leave it at that (I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise, and vice versa). <g> -- Max Heim '66 MGB GHN3L76149 If you're; /html/mgs/2002-12/msg00178.html (9,568 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]