Theseus

Yeah they will blame zero for a stagnant economy and Trump for growth and a vibrant economy where all-time job rates are at an all time low and income is rising for the middle class.

One other thing, @bostonangler the chart you showed, how convenient that it shows Ford trading higher than January's high and still far above where they were five years ago.

@bostonangler you need to find new sources man. The ones I posted undermine your theory Trump Tariffs are the reason for the job cuts. Bzzzzt! Wrong Answer.

Job cuts loom over Ford's mysterious 'fitness' plan Phoebe Wall Howard, Detroit Free PressPublished 6:00 a.m. ET Sept. 6, 2018 | Updated 12:11 p.m. ET Sept. 6, 2018 CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 22COMMENTEMAILMORE What’s next? After a year of delays and missteps, Ford Motor Co. employees are warily awaiting details of CEO Jim Hackett’s promised “fitness” plan and whether it means job losses — as investors look for signs of hope. Does $11 billion planned in "restructuring charges" over three to five years mean thousands of worker buyouts, as suggested by market analysts? Will the money-losing European division face thousands of job cuts as the Sunday Times of London just reported? Is default a real risk, after Moody’s Investment Services downgraded the Ford rating to just above junk status last week? And what about Ford’s continuing struggle in China, the world's largest auto market? Can it ever gain traction? “The problems for Ford now aren’t financial, they’re strategic,” said Marick Masters, a business professor at Wayne State University. “The company needs to adjust to an industry changing rapidly, and no one knows where it’s going to end up in 10 to 15 years and who the major players will be. There is concern about whether or not it is being led in the right direction.” No one knows what to expect from the Dearborn automaker — except its promise of more trucks and SUVs and the probability of significant job cuts with its restructuring. Jon Gabrielsen, a market economist who advises automakers and auto suppliers, said Ford simply can’t achieve its goals without cutting salaried jobs “quite significantly.” In recent weeks, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas projected a 12 percent cut in Ford staff worldwide. “Ford’s operations need restructuring. We do not see restructuring at Ford as a ‘nice to have’ … but as a crucial step to set the global business on a more balanced footing,” Jonas wrote on Aug. 20. Bob Shanks, chief financial officer at Ford, declined during an interview Wednesday to comment on the job cuts forecast. He acknowledged that the term restructuring, generally, suggests "workforce reduction and closures." "We do understand the concerns that they have and that they're expressing. We're not deaf or blind," he told the Free Press. "This is a company that's been successful for quite a long time." He continued, "A year ago, we started a journey that's going to be a very fundamental redesign of our traditional auto business. It's a huge, huge transformation." More: Ford recalls 2 million F-150 pickup trucks to fix seat belt defect causing fires 'Isn't what it needs to be' "We're looking at a major redesign in our business, particularly overseas markets. That performance is not good. After years of hard work, restructuring, new products and changes, it just isn't what it needs to be. Parts of the business are very attractive and profitable, but too much are not. The bottom line is unacceptable." He acknowledged "frustration" and promised to announce things "along the way." "We have done enough work that we know the redesign will result in what we call restructuring," Shanks said. "We clearly have not been forthcoming in terms of any specific actions. But we have a very clear idea of where we're heading." Bob Shanks, executive vice president and chief financial officer, Ford Motor Co. (Photo: Ford, Wieck) Market analysts are openly annoyed. “It’s all very vague,” said Ivan Drury, senior analyst for Edmunds. “I mean, last Friday, with no notice, they changed their plans again and just killed the Ford Focus Active. Even if it’s made in China, people want to buy the same car over and over again. Now they can’t.” He added, “What is the actual path for Ford? It’s hard to see. There are a lot of trees and weeds and they need to take a machete and really clear that path for consumers and investors.” Read more: Ford nixes import from China, blames trade war Does Ford's SUV gamble signal trouble ahead? Jonas has been harsh with Hackett publicly, pressing him for details, openly criticizing him for canceling an investor briefing and asking him directly in August whether he would be around to explain details. Hackett, whom Ford declined to make available for this article, emphatically replied to Jonas that he has no plans to leave. No one can be sure whether Ford is strong or weak at this point, said Stephanie Brinley, a senior analyst at London-based IHS Markit. “All the changes with the restructuring aren’t yet clear,” she said. “Some of the changes they’re waiting to implement, others (they) have already done. Volkswagen and General Motors are on their way, and to a lesser degree Toyota. In some respects, Ford is just cleaning up. “It doesn’t seem like Jim Hackett has been embraced by the community at large as quickly as others," Brinley said. "The jury's still out." Bet on this management? Jonas emphasized that Ford’s $11-billion cost projection is “materially larger” than the previous $8.5 billion that analysts expected, and the lack of an investor update “contributed to investor anxiety.” “Investors need to weigh the risk of betting on management delivering on an unknown plan that may take three to five years to play out … opening up to a range of potentially adverse economic and credit scenarios that could impede execution,” Jonas wrote. “At this stage, we have assumed a global head-count reduction of approximately 12 percent. Such a magnitude of reduction is not without precedent in the auto industry and is coincidentally in line with market reports in 2017.” Ford employs about 202,000 people worldwide. Analysts estimate separation costs, also called buyouts, to be roughly $120,000 per employee for Ford. Volkswagen announced its restructure plan two years ago and targeted 30,000 job cuts over five years at about $135,000 per employee, Jonas said. “Decisive strategic actions and a cessation of negative revisions can improve investor confidence in management,” Jonas wrote in his forecast. While Fiat Chrysler presented a five-year plan, Ford has been mum. General Motors has already pulled out of Europe, earning praise for CEO Mary Barra. About 300 of its top executives gathered last week in Dearborn for a global leadership meeting. The company declined a Free Press request to attend, as the meeting involved proprietary information. Company officials point to their ability to avoid the bankruptcy that befell GM and what then was Chrysler and build a $25-billion cash reserve. To be sure, Ford is making money, having an earned adjusted pretax profit in 2017 of $8.4 billion. But second quarter 2018 profits were off 50 percent from the year before, and the stock price has been on a downward trend for four years. Concern is abundant. “Everybody was shocked when Ford said it was going to spend $11 billion to restructure,” said John McElroy, a longtime observer of the auto industry and host of "Autoline This Week" whose father retired from Ford. “I think it caught Wall Street by surprise," he said. "Ford previously announced it would go through restructuring as it improves the fitness of the company, but I don’t think anybody expected it was going to cost so much to do it. Those numbers come from having to close down plants and get rid of people. This will be done through buyouts." Treading water globally Ford’s problems appear to be growing in Europe, South America and Asia. “Look, Ford is treading water right now,” McElroy said. Shanks said Ford will, "at the appropriate time, provide an overall narrative" and offer "proof points" to explain actions designed to improve the company. "It's not all doom and gloom. We're actually making a lot of progress in many parts of the business." In fact, the company's August 2018 sales were up 4 percent from a year before and the profit-driving F-Series truck line is selling at a record pace for the year. Academics and industry analysts said that Ford has a reputation for cyclical bad strategy and eventual recovery, but it’s painful to watch. “Ford goes through these transitions over time. They run into problems and then figure a way out of it, more than other auto companies,” said Robert Wiseman, senior associate dean at the Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. “Will analysts be patient? I’m not sure.” He bristled when asked whether Ford might cut dividend payments to stockholders, a mechanism that provides a nice return despite a chronically low stock price that pales when compared with General Motors. “That’s one of the reasons the stock has been worth investing in,” Wiseman said. “I still own General Motors and Ford. GM has done well and Ford is taking a beating. I hope the restructuring will produce savings in the long run.” The shift from sedan production to trucks is going to cost money, analysts agreed. “Product is key,” said Dave Sullivan, manager of product analysis at AutoPacific Inc. “Ford can't cut their products in hopes things will turn around. They have to either have a profitable lineup or pull out. This is especially true in South America. GM couldn't find the magic formula with Opel and made a very bold move. The glory days of diesel in Europe are gone and now Ford looks to be behind on the electrification front in Europe. Ford has gotten rid of Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Mazda and Aston Martin. Is Ford looking to mirror their lineup after Jeep and Ram? Europe is really a tough place ... with some very attractive products with outstanding value.” While the F-Series truck franchise is a cash cow in North America, Ford lacks any comparable product overseas. “It's hard to imagine Ford swallowing a pill like pulling out of South America or Europe but, at some point, the question is going to come up," Sullivan said. "Is Ford positioned for the next downturn in these markets? "I do have hope that Ford and VW will quickly be able to pull something together to share developments costs (as is under discussion), but even then, it's going to be years to see substantial fruit from that. Maybe Ford could help VW with commercial vehicles in the U.S. and VW could help Ford with cars and electrification in Europe. It's not the first time Ford and VW have worked together, but it's something that should have happened eight years ago.” Read more: Ford investment rating cut to one notch above junk Bill Ford on CEO Hackett: 'I love having him here' International media coverage of Ford’s purchase of the Michigan Central Station has been positive, spotlighting the site as a recruitment tool for top talent in the industry. But observers worry about cash flow. After nearly a year of waiting for Ford to speak up, one analyst said, “Wall Street patience is hanging by a thread.” Ford pins all its hopes and dreams to the multibillion-dollar profits of its F-Series pickups. “But North America can’t hold the water forever,” Sullivan. “The next economic downturn or supplier fire or global incident or trade meltdown could cause something tragic to happen because of the importance of the F-Series. They can’t sell those in Europe, South America or China. So what do you have that makes money in those markets? You can’t just continue in markets for the heck of it.” Ford lost $73 million in Europe between April and June 2018. And the sunny forecast for North America is expected to dim. “Competitors will chip away,” Drury said. “FCA has had production issues with Ram, getting all the engine types available for consumers. But we’re seen on our website that the F-150 consumers are looking at the redesigned 2019 Ram 1500. There’s interest among consumers. In the large truck segment, loyalty is king. And the Chevrolet Silverado is coming, too.” As the 115-year-old company focuses on electrification and connectivity, it faces uncertain outcomes, said Kristin Dziczek, vice president of the Industry, Labor & Economics Group at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. She worried that layoffs could cut too deeply. “Ford has a lot of bets they’re making,” Dziczek said. “Everyone knows an economic slowdown is coming. A lot of companies are making preparations. I just don’t know how you gut everybody and still get the job done.” Contact Phoebe Wall Howard: phoward@freepress.com or 313-222-6512. Follow her on Twitter @phoebesaid This story has been modified to reflect that analyst Adam Jonas projects the bulk of 24,000 Ford global job cuts to be in Europe, not all of them.

Why Ford Is Making This Huge Strategy Shift By BILL SELESKY and JIM KELLEHER May 21, 2017 Ford recently announced plans to cut jobs and shift production away from sedans and toward sport utility vehicles and crossovers. The company’s commitment to the working truck, or pickup, market is unwavering. But de-emphasizing sedans—where Ford has had great success with models from Taurus to Fusion to Focus—is a noteworthy shift in strategy. First and foremost, Ford is responding to evolving consumer tastes and uses. The “family” vehicle needs to fill multiple roles, from commuting to ferrying soccer players to delivering a night on the town. Crossovers and SUVs are better suited to this multi-tasking, with their roomy interiors and flexible seating and storage options. Ford realizes that the sedan market is flooded with inexpensive imports from Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, and others. European automakers have a lock on the high-end sedan market, and—with the exception of a few vehicles such as the Lincoln MKS—Ford has limited investment in this area. For Ford to compete in the popularly priced sedan space, it needs to produce basic cars that eschew the sophisticated electronic systems that increasingly define the modern driving experience. It’s chosen to instead include these enhancements in SUVS and crossovers—where consumer demand has been rising. These new vehicles are more fun to drive and in particular safer because of advances in vehicle technology. These enhancements span relatively mature categories such as anti-lock brakes and upgraded on-board computers and navigation systems to advanced driver assist systems, which provide everything from lane warnings to automated braking. New infotainment options turn the vehicle into an Internet hub. The driver of this trend has been an increase in average sticker price. The average U.S. new vehicle price rose from around $31,000 in 2013 to around $35,000 in 2017, according to our propriety research. Growth in the dollar value of vehicle sales amid declining unit sales signals that consumers are willing to pay up for enhanced safety and a better driving experience. http://fortune.com/2017/05/21/ford-motor-company-layoffs-job-salary-cuts-2017/ NOTE: Yes, they announced this before the Tariffs went into effect. So pluhlease find something better.

The Ford layoffs have nothing to do with Trump's tariffs. Ford is going through a restructuring by moving production away from sedans to multi-role SUVs and Crossovers. This is related to a couple of factors. 1) The saturation of the market with cheap imported sedans ; 2) The needs of the family to ferry children around to commuting back and forth to work, and 3) the demand for suvs and crossovers has been rising where consumer driveability and safety is at the core for the this rise. Since Ford is restructuring to meet the needs of the market the layoffs do not appear to be that of the tariffs but a restructuring to meet market demand and consumer needs and wants. @bostonangler had you read a few of the articles you say is everywhere, instead of trying to smear Trump, and conjectured less about the reason you would have found the reason plain as day. Your attempt while valiant is nothing more than fake news.

It appears to be just legalese, for now. However, If anything removing the zeroes, in addition to the exchange rate, from the denoms noted above would put the currency on par with other countries like the US and European countries with denoms in 25, 10, 1 and metals in 0.50 and 0.25. They did remove the 0.50 coin a couple of years. They do have a 50K denom and I think (can't remember) they scratched the new 100K denom. These would round out the group when the larger denoms were made into smaller denoms. Iraq went to the larger denoms because they needed more currency to conduct business at such a low rate. It would only make logical sense when the zeroes are removed from the exchange rate that lower currencies would be needed as a 25K note would be too much monetarily. This is not a LOP as they would remove the zeroes from both the exchange rate and the denoms.

We will see if this budget gets passed by the end of 2018. The way they are dragging their heels they will be lucky to have a fully formed government by November. Pass the budget in a month? More like three to four months.

Iraq will have Death and destruction for 1,000, Alex.

Better to be a yankee than a yanker.

An intern for Sheila Lee Jackson whom she says she fired after he was accused of doing this.

Neil Boortz before he retired had a show from Atlanta GA. He was known to talk about flying his plane cross country. Here e used to be on before Rush. He had two sidekicks a man and woman as well as his own website. Not sure if it is still up.

Too bad, you would have liked your futuristic accommodations.

Sure just ask the Grays to put you up for a while.

I vote to send Shabs to Bermuda through the Bermuda Triangle.

Ayes - 51 Nays 49 Collins voted to move this forward but will address her confirmation vote today at 3PM EST. Cloture votes are to end the debate on a Senate topic. There is an appointed 30 hour wait time before the vote happens. Murkowski - No Donnelly - No Manchin - Yes Collins - Yes (only for the cloture vote.) Flake Yes

Invest $250K with Iran and they will put you up for free in a well secured one-room home. Amenities include well-secured door locks, great ventilation on three sides. Complete with furnishings to include a mattress bed with free linens, a toilet and sink and community showers. Lots of activities to do such as walk in our fenced in park, play the shank or be shanked game. Who knows you may end up falling in love with a neighbor. Come invest and live in Iraq where we not only take your money but we also take your freedom as well.

Massive Arctic Ice Gain Over The Past Five Years Posted on September 18, 2017 by tonyheller Arctic sea ice extent is up 40% from this date five years ago. 2012 2017 Greenland’s surface gained ten times as much ice as it did five years ago, and was the fifth highest on record. Guest post: How the Greenland ice sheet fared in 2017 | Carbon Brief Greenland’s most famous glacier, the Petermann Glacier, has grown substantially and steadily over the past five years. NASA Satellite Imagery This is a big change from 1939, when the glaciers of Greenland and Norway were facing catastrophic collapse. 17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier NASA responded quite predictably to the inconvenient 1930’s warmth in the Eastern Arctic – by simply trying to erase it. Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis It is also a big change from 65 years ago, when the glaciers of Norway and Alaska had lost half their mass, and threatened to drown seaports. 18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING Climate scientists have responded to this years large Arctic ice gain by doing the only thing they know how to do – lie about it.

Great neg me! I usually dont respond to negs but in this case I see you negging the person who wrote the original statement, Neg away!

I have a question What happened to the "later in the week" that something "big" was supposed to happen? ahhh right...nothing did happen that week. This is another "future" or "soon" article (see the first highlighted sentence).

....

Kind of like how the demoRATS said that the election of Trump would not go unnoticed and if Kavanaugh is confirmed they would impeach both. Same story different day.

When did danny davito become an iraqi citizen?

October 1, 2018 New York Times finally admits how Obama screwed up the economy in 2016 By Thomas Lifson Calling it "The Most Important Least-Noticed Economic Event of the Decade," the New York Times finally acknowledges the degree to which Barack Obama's policies were strangling business investment in his final year in office. During the presidential campaign, acknowledging this "mini recession that many missed" was taboo, of course. And among those "many" who "least-noticed" it was the New York Times. So why is the Times admitting it now? Why, of course, to denigrate the achievements of President Trump in rescuing the economy from the miasma Obama inflicted on it with taxes and regulatory policies. Neil Irwin writes: [In 2015 and 2016, t]here was a sharp slowdown in business investment, caused by an interrelated weakening in emerging markets, a drop in the price of oil and other commodities, and a run-up in the value of the dollar. Even though the Times and its readers were able to disregard the suffering in the oil patch, on farms, and in the Rust Belt manufacturing strongholds, candidate Trump actively campaigned with these constituencies and won the presidency on his promise to revive them from the suffering inflicted upon them. He knew; he acted; and after he won, he revived them. As Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds quips: Now, the Times acknowledges the reality and immediately turns to crediting Obama. I kid you not: Actually, in very different language, I acknowledged weeks ago that the wreckage left by Obama did help Trump look good in comparison: But far be it from the Times to recognize achievement on the part of Trump. No, the reporters over there have to wag their fingers and warn of danger! Here is a sign of the actual risk over which the Times frets, unveiled hours ago: Even more winning! China announces tariff cuts on 'wide range of products' Calling it "The Most Important Least-Noticed Economic Event of the Decade," the New York Times finally acknowledges the degree to which Barack Obama's policies were strangling business investment in his final year in office. During the presidential campaign, acknowledging this "mini recession that many missed" was taboo, of course. And among those "many" who "least-noticed" it was the New York Times. So why is the Times admitting it now? Why, of course, to denigrate the achievements of President Trump in rescuing the economy from the miasma Obama inflicted on it with taxes and regulatory policies. Neil Irwin writes: Even though the Times and its readers were able to disregard the suffering in the oil patch, on farms, and in the Rust Belt manufacturing strongholds, candidate Trump actively campaigned with these constituencies and won the presidency on his promise to revive them from the suffering inflicted upon them. He knew; he acted; and after he won, he revived them. As Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds quips: Now, the Times acknowledges the reality and immediately turns to crediting Obama. I kid you not: Actually, in very different language, I acknowledged weeks ago that the wreckage left by Obama did help Trump look good in comparison: But far be it from the Times to recognize achievement on the part of Trump. No, the reporters over there have to wag their fingers and warn of danger! Here is a sign of the actual risk over which the Times frets, unveiled hours ago: Even more winning! China announces tariff cuts on 'wide range of products' Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/new_york_times_finally_admits_how_obama_screwed_up_the_economy_in_2016.html#ixzz5ShdAfNfV Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

No because at the end where the guy jumps out of the way... I would have hit him and blamed it on the rain or teary eyes.