1. first sentence, sure. so get a second job. learn a new skill. stop smoking/drinking and save that. second sentence - most do not 'already have money' when they start out. i certainly did not. i scrimped and saved, and did without (didn't buy a car until i was 22) and lived beneath my means until i could afford a few shares (GM was my first stock purchase and i made money on it ).

2. wrong on every level. there's more investors who couldn't care less about dividends and invest (often for the long haul) due to belief in increased future share price. and if people were less willing to invest in companies that invest and may not see a profit for the long term then most startups would never get anywhere, and companies like tesla, amazon, etc., which haven't made hardly any if any profits and reinvest everything, would fail. but they haven't.

wow i guess you don't think anyone can MAKE money, only steal it and inherit it huh? this is not a static world and the pie can and does get bigger (and smaller).

back on this buick and china, the chinese are a classic example of MAKING MONEY... the gov unleashed the creative talent and entrepreneurial spirit of the people and china is now vastly more wealthy than it was a few decades ago.

lol. if a government is truly running an 'austerity' program then it wouldn't run up debt. germany has no deficit because it is EXTREMELY disciplined about finance. greece on the other hand, is an economic basketcase, having spent hundreds of billions it didn't have (to supposedly have a 'fairer' system by the way), and THEN was forced (by the rest of the eu, mostly germany) to adopt austerity programs to bring down its ludicrous spending. at one point 1/3 of greeks worked for its government (mostly doing nothing).

i guess in your view all corporations are run by people like this guy.



huh? bernie wanted to run up 'huge debt' on 'ridiculous policies' (in some quest for 'fairness' - sound familiar?). trump's deal is very different, feels we make bad trade and foreign policy deals and our immigration (legal and illegal) is too lax.

examples? the best companies make things wherever it's most efficient and cost-effective for the markets they serve. lexus made the good decision to make the RX in canada for example - no doubt made them much more profit and allowed them to be more competitive and quicker to deliver. anyway, no one is forcing you to buy a corporation's products typically (except stuff like some pharmaceuticals where we have a real monopoly problem).

back to the envision - it's the first of a giant coming wave of chinese vehicles so might want to get used to it. although china will compete with mexico to a large degree for the u.s. market.

 

Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, financial crises. Glass-Steagall Act, GM - Government Motors, Chrysler bailouts 1 and 2. Municipalities declaring bankruptcy (hello Detroit). Apple ordered to pay the EU back taxes which it tried to evade. Brexit - people got so tired of this "free trade" that they told their leaders to get the heck out the EU!

China: workers who commit suicide after they can no longer tolerate the conditions while they build your smartphone. I guess they should invest their meager earning in their employer's company. And a country so polluted by the rise of a sort of pseudo-capitalism that we admire it but we wouldn't want to live there.

Everything is well, no need to scrutinize, move on, nothing to see here. Because two 1-percenters are going to save the economy just like they've been doing for the past 40 years.

 

i just got back from your fabulous province (canmore, jasper, etc.). it's obviously doing great on the tourism front despite the boom/bust of the shale oil business (and horrendous pollution). and tourism depends on lots of young people willing to work for peanuts and tips so they can ski / snowboard in the winter, and hike etc. in the summer.

 

Nothing wrong with enjoying the scenery. Apparently (and yes I've been there and drove tourist buses around), they can't find Canadians willing to work for those wages... so they've had to import temporary foreign workers to do those low wage jobs. In fact you can't find a Canuck willing to be exploited in a beautiful town like Banff.

Luckily Canadians have come to their senses and tossed out their respective market fundamentalist governments in both Ottawa and Edmonton

But on a more serious note. The Envision will sell like hot cakes. It looks good, and if it drives well then there's no reason that a Buick buyer would not look at it.

 

Well, it will likely sell, simply because it is an SUV in an SUV-crazy world. But, as i said before in this thread, I think a number of larger Americans will might think twice before plunking down 40K+ for a vehicle with uncomfortable, Chinese-size front seats and a questionable odor inside.

 

Back to Cascada looks like sold 6,000+ units no rentals.


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/11/buick-cascada-not-chrysler-200-convertible-rental-queen-thought-itd/

 

I really like the Cascada. Even though it is not really all that good of a car and the interior is really dated. I still like it. Perhaps it has to do with the lack of convertibles.. but I do like the looks of it.

 

From what I have seen, the Cascada is very well-built....just like all of the smaller Buicks done off of Opel platforms (in fact, it's almost a total rebadge of the European Opel/Vauxhall Cascada). IMO they made two mistakes with it, though (other than the lack of traditional Buick trim-features), One, the 20" tires and wheels that ride like **** over bumps, and, two, a small turbo four instead of a larger, naturally-aspirated power plant.