• Welcome to DNForum.com - Domain Investor Forum, Free Domain Marketplace and a community for 45+ domain pros
    If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.

Major Market Indexes at Critical Points

Status
Not open for further replies.
They can get green another way that is much better all the way around, put turbo chargers on small 4 cyc. More power and much better gas milage, as well as turn gears over to electric. That will also drop CO2 good as well, and some thing they can do fairly cheap.

Ever have to replace a turbocharger? Not cheap.
When I bought my last car, I intentionally bought a non turbo model. Long term maintenance is much less expensive with a normally asprited engine. A turbo is fine if the warranty goes to 200k miles, but as far as I know, only rolls/bentley offer unlimited mileage warranties. So much for being cost effective :-)

You are correct about electric though. It is by far the cheapest, simplest way to go, for all concerns. It would greatly reduce the dependence on imported oil, and it's a whole lot cheaper to produce. Are you ready to support nuclear energy? I also have no problem with wind. I think everyone should have their own windmill in their backyard. Solar is fine, but the technology is still not cost effective.
 
Turbo's would get really cheap if all autos had them, so that should not be a real problem to fix them even then. But your right and they could, fix them free upto 200k milage to insure people are not worried about that.

Turbo's are not that much to make really, it's only that they could charge much more. So as far as making them standard that not a problem, computers would not cost anymore for them. That would also make them easy, to tap into all the different fuels as well so it's a win all around.
 
The stock market looks for short term gains, when in fact it should be looking for long term gains. Take GM stock it's at $3 and if GM makes it through this all, and start turning out good green autos then that stock will fly. Does the stock market see GM stock as a buy, no they don't they are selling it at big loses.

S&P 500 (major index most focused on by pros) is now trading at 2003 levels..any gains you had from then have evaporated in the last 5 years.

MSFT is now trading at levels below it's 2000 levels...any gains you had from then have evaporated in the last 8 years.

Buy and hold is a myth sold by brokers and others that don't know when to sell. The idea is to buy then sell when the stock or broader market signals you to do so.

I could go on but I'm getting bored trying to knock some market sense into some of you :)
 
Last edited:
And an unlikely alternative considering the party of the pres elect:

3) the companies go into reorganizational bankrupty, bust the unions grip on them, and be able to become competitive.

edit: this is the correct solution, imho. How can a company compete when their biggest expense cannot be adjusted as the market adjusts?

Bringing this back.. I see the white house is suddenly "open to a bankruptcy option"

Wish they had let this happen in the first place and saved 17 billion (so far) of our money. :mmph:
 
And an unlikely alternative considering the party of the pres elect:

3) the companies go into reorganizational bankrupty, bust the unions grip on them, and be able to become competitive.

edit: this is the correct solution, imho. How can a company compete when their biggest expense cannot be adjusted as the market adjusts?

This is a reply to a post of mine from November.

I'm just so f*ing happy they wasted billions more of our kids/grandkids money before finally did what they should have done back then. Unbelievable.
 
There is absolutely NO *good* reason why all of these "in trouble" companies should not go through bankruptcy like every other organization.

There are *bad* reasons:
1) Wealthy stockholders may lose more in the end.
2) Labor Unions contracts MUST be re-negociated, as they should be.

VAST amounts of money have been thrown away. Just to give this some perspective, 1/2 Trillion dollars is enough to CURE ALL HUMAN CANCER. In the last year, we've committed to spending $10 trillion to this 'economic fix'.

So enjoy your cancer while the stockholders 'stay stable'.
 
I agree with South, organized bankruptcies are the answer for these uncompetitive and outdated dinosaur companies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom