August 30, 2011

Horse 1223 - If You Don't Like Your Job, Quit!

@rperrett recently retweeted a link to an article from a website called Lifehacker. The article in question was by someone called David Fuhriman who appears to be some sort of Venture Capitalist and Entrepreneur.

You can read through the article if you like but I'll provide a few select paragraphs:

What did I love enough that I would do it for free? I figured that if I was actually willing to do it for free, then that would be a good start. So I explored taking the CFA or CAIA certifications- maybe I would like to do more security analysis. No. I started looking into commodities and opened up a margin account, funded it with some money. But that wasn't it. Did some real estate analysis, properties in the mid-west have attractive cap-rates. No.
I ended up coming back to what I used to do: helping small companies grow. This time I wanted to grow something scalable- with national or international scope. I started attending tech events, reading everything online, buying books, and discovered something I love doing for free- and what I do really well. I am very good at working in the space between Technology and Business. I ended up quitting my job to work on these things full-time. I discovered there are two reasons to only work in a job that you would do for free.

Curiously of the 14 replies posted on the website and the 8 replies via Twitter, only 2 seem to be in agreement where as the other 20 are downright antagonistic. This is a selection:

- So forgive me if I'm not super-on-the-train with mr. startup-venture-capitalist, because I seriously doubt he's ever had to worry about making rent a day in the past twenty years of his life.
- That's not sound advice, it's airy-fairy bull****!
- If you don't have a family to support, or like to eat occasionally, perhaps.
- That's the worst advice I've ever heard if you've got a family to feed and aren't an independently wealthy entrepreneur.
- Haha, I can only imagine what small % that would be of people
- Is David Fuhriman going to pay my mortgage for me?

Do we see a trend emerging here?

Although I can understand the rationale for suggesting that people seek a job which they're ultimately going to find satisfying, there is a distinct difference between intangible ideals and very very tangible real life.

Firstly the article starts with the premise of a lie: "What did I love enough that I would do it for free?". Does this chap then back up those words by volunteering for anything? Of course not; not a bar of it. It's obvious that people like to receive rewards for the work they do (usually monetary). Not only do people like to receive rewards for the work they do but the vast majority of workers rely on the monetary rewards for the work they do.
Suppose that I was actually to carry through on this quite frankly irrational advice. Is my Landlord also likely to provide my housing for free? What about the electricity company, the phone company or even the grocery store? A chap still has to eat.

Secondly there is something altogether terse in the attitude "if you don't like it, quit". This is just a suggestion but maybe if employers started creating an agreeable and harmonious environment in the workplace, so that people didn't hate their job, maybe they wouldn't? This "if you don't like it, quit" attitude does little more than inspire mistrust and dare I say it hatred in employees for their employers.

By way of background I note that Mr Fuhriman happens to live in San Diego.This might be a gross generalisation but there is a great sense of free enterprise in the United States and a nebulous thing called the "American Dream", which is basically the ethos of success and prosperity. It's all very well to suggest that people simply quit but does this make any sense at all in the real world?

Maybe Mr Fuhriman hasn't read the San Diego Union-Tribune lately but last time I checked, the unemployment rate in the United States was 9.2%; meaning that some 14.1 million Americans are out of work. I would suggest that the vast bulk of them would jump at the chance to do even a lowly job if it meant that the bill-collectors were kept at bay. Clearly Mr Fuhriman has either never known hardship or poverty; for him to speak with such tones speaks volumes of his insincerity and callousness.

I also note that as an "Entrepreneur" and/or Venture Capitalist, it is in fact in Mr Fuhriman's interest that people quit their jobs and employ him during the initial start-up phase. Maybe it's willful blindness on his part but the fact remains that about 80% of all businesses fail in the first three years; I can say with almost 100% certainty that he would still collect his fees even if those businesses which he works with fail. So much for doing it for free.

Maybe it's his overriding belief in the American Dream which is what is driving him. There has to be a point though where you stop dreaming and wake up.

Probably the vast majority of people wouldn't just quit their jobs unless there was another better offer on the table, or the conditions in their existing job were so terrible that they felt that they were forced to. Given a very tight employment market, simply quitting your job, is not only irresponsible but downright idiotic and I think that the wave of invective which has followed is totally justified.

August 25, 2011

Horse 1222 - Kia K9 - Woof Woof

Currently known by its prototype number, the Kia K9 I think probably represents the car which Kia are likely to enter in the V8 Supercar Championship come 2013.

It replaces the Kia Opirus and compliments the Kia Cadenza (K7 in Korea) and would likely be marketed with the 3L Theta V6 or the 3.5L Lambda V6 which both come from parent company Hyundai.
What I find curious is that Hyundai also have a 5L V8 called Tau which currently sits in the Hyundai Genesis.

It's worth noting that Hyundai saw as its direct competitors for the Genesis (and by inference the K9) in the United States are/were the Ford Taurus and the Pontiac G8. The Ford Taurus will more than likely replace the Ford Falcon come 2016 and the Pontiac G8 was the Holden Commodore. See any coincidences yet?

If this week's Auto Action magazine (24Aug-31Aug issue) rumours are anything to go by, then if Kia is "considering" entering the V8 Supercars Championship then the K9 with the Tau V8 just might be the final few pieces to fall into the jigsaw. Certainly Kia would be looking to market their new car and the V8 Supercars Championship would be a very good platform to do that in.

Kia already run a Pro Cee'd in the Belgian Touring Car Championship and a Forte (Cerato) in the Chinese Touring Car Championship. Let me say that I think that the Kia Pro Cee'd looks very cool indeed.

Holden, Ford & Kia? Bring it on.

Heck I'll even drive for Kia, I've got no reputation that can be damaged. Send your mail to:

Give Andrew Rollason a V8 Supercars Drive
Kia Motors Australia
PO Box 7506
Silverwater NSW 2128

If they contact me, i'll be very surprised indeed.

August 23, 2011

Horse 1221a - Mr Abbott Will Accept The Results of The Plebiscite Now?
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has told parliament he'll abide by any plebiscite on a carbon tax.
He's put forward a private member's bill for a non-binding poll on Labor's planned tax to be conducted no later than the last Saturday in November.

Given that the official stance as posted on the Liberal Party website was that if the result didn't go the way Mr Abbott wanted, then it would be ignored, does this mean to say that Mr Abbott's promise is now binding even though a plebiscite is a non-binding poll?

I should point out at this point that Mr Abbott should remember during his time as both the Minister for Employment under it various guises and also the Manager of Government Business in the House of Representatives that when the Labour Party opposed Work Choices (which by the way the Liberal Party also lied about prior to the 2004 election: much the same way as he now accuses the Gillard Government of doing over the Carbon Tax), they didn't go to a plebiscite but fought the 2007 election, won Government and subsequently repealed it.
That's the way things can and should be done in a Westminster Parlianment. Legislation is tabled before the House, not wheeled before the people who's input could be ignored anyway.

Before we do have a  plebiscite, I think we should have a plebiscite to decide if the people want a plebiscite; it would be non-binding of course.

August 22, 2011

Horse 1221 - Why The Plebiscite is a Waste of Time and Money

Tony Abbott has put before the parliament a bill calling plebiscite on whether Australia should have a carbon tax; by his own admission, it will be a waste of time and money and it will be HIS fault.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has introduced a bill calling for a plebiscite on whether Australia should have a carbon tax.
He said the vote should be held by November.
“I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to redeem herself. I am giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to make an honest woman of herself … to overcome the honesty deficit that she currently displays,’’ he said.
This would mean there could be a vote on the carbon tax without an election.
“We can have a vote on the carbon tax without necessarily a change of government. I am making it easier with this bill to have this matter put to the people. By proposing a plebiscite I am allowing this matter to go to the public for a vote, as it should … wI am giving the Government and other members of this Parliament an opportunity to restore faith with fewer adverse consequences for themselves than would otherwise be the case.’’
- Canberra Times, 20 Aug 2011

Why is Tony Abbott even bothering to get the parliament to force a plebiscite?

The truth of the matter is that on June 20 on Melbourne's 3AW, that if he was successful in forcing a plebiscite and the result found that the Australian public were actually in favour of a Carbon Tax, that he would rescind the legislation if he became Prime Minister.

Where do you find such information? Published on the Liberal Party's website for crying out loud.
Oh yes, absolutely. I mean, my position on a carbon tax is that I am against it in opposition and I will rescind it in government.

Here we have a man who continually attacks the Prime Minister for "lying" about not introducing a Carbon Tax, yet actually promises to violate the wishes of the Australian people should he become Prime Minister.

Perhaps a reminder of Section 51 of the Constitution is in order; specifically:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth...

I often wonder about those words "good government". Can "good government" include a promise to deliberately act in bad faith? Admittedly actually holding a plebiscite doesn't bind the parliament but acting in good faith which is arguably the basis of "good government" at very least should demonstrate a commitment to the compliance of the will of the people, no?

Again, why bother to force a plebiscite if you have not an iota of intent to listen to it if you disagree with it? What is the point?
Or to put it another way, Mr Abbott has promised to willfully waste taxpayers money on a stupid non-binding  question which he'll ignore anyway.


Horse 1220 - Is Cricket Really Going Through A Bad Patch?

Going into Day 5 of the Fourth Test against India, England have a commanding lead having declared at 591 for 6, with India bowled out for 300 and now being "invited" to follow-on are 129 for 3; still requiring 162 to make England bat again.

On ABC Local Radio this morning, a discussion was had which basically suggested that the only reason that England were on top at the moment was because that cricket generally is going through a bad patch.
What rot!
Accusations of this nature weren't made when Australia were on top smacking all and sundry, or when India reached the summit of Test Cricket. So why is it that when England gets to the No.1 ranking does it suddenly become a case that cricket is going through a bad patch?

Largely because Britain had an empire and was genuinely horrible to other peoples more than 60 years ago and because Britain has a tradition of being able to laugh at itself, Britain and by inference England has becomes an unwritten case of an Acceptable Target.
England is seen by the cricket world as the Upper Class Twits, the Aristocrats, maybe the Gentry and "Old Money", despite the billions of Dollarpounds now flowing into Indian cricket.

It was the same when England won the Rugby World Cup in 2003.
The England Rugby team in 1998 had suffered the "Tour From Hell" including a 76-0 loss against Australia and then set about changing the structure of the RFU. The fact that England had spent five years rebuilding the team from the ground up was totally overlooked but pundits and commentators when England won the World Cup in 2003; Rugby must have been generally going through a bad patch because the thought that England might have actually through hard work and effort built a world-class team was totally unacceptable.

So it is with the English Cricket team.
England in 2006/7 suffered a five-nil whitewash on the tour of Australia; then had a disastrous ODI World Cup in the West Indies in 2007. The coach Duncan Fletcher resigned, and have steadily rebuilt the squad into what it is today.

Can it really be the case that England is the best in the world because they actually are the best in the world finally? Maybe it's because we're used to seeing season after season of poor performances that there is just some sort of emotional discord that makes it impossible to believe.

England No.1? Yeah right, cricket must be going through a bad patch.

August 19, 2011

Wheels Magazine - Scoop - 11 Months Late!

The September 2011 edition of Wheels Magazine, boldly has the Ford Taurus splashed all over it's cover, citing it as the replacement for the Ford Falcon when that comes to the end of its model cycle.

Hang on, I could have told you that! In fact, I DID in Horse 1110 and Horse 1175.

If I'm a hack and only have sources which are pretty well much accessible to everyone already, then why did take Wheels Magazine 11 months to report on this? Does this mean to say that I as an unpaid hack, am a better journalist than the paid monkeys at Wheels Magazine? I think so.

August 16, 2011

Awesome Anagram

It is very rarely that I will use the word "awesome". Awesome means to inspire "awe". Awe itself is an very deep feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like.

The following anagram won the award for the best anagram of 1999 at I think that it's probably the single best anagram I have ever seen. Maybe it's because of my nerdulence but upon seeing this I was in a state of very deep admiration; I think this is surely the greatest anagram ever developed.

Firstly it takes the names of thirty chemical elements:

hydrogen + zirconium + tin + oxygen + rhenium + platinum + tellurium + terbium + nobelium + chromium + iron + cobalt + carbon + aluminum + ruthenium + silicon + ytterbium + hafnium + sodium + selenium + cerium + manganese + osmium + uranium + nickel + praseodymium + erbium + vanadium + thallium + plutonium


nitrogen + zinc + rhodium + helium + argon + neptunium + beryllium + bromine + lutetium + boron + calcium + thorium + niobium + lanthanum + mercury + fluorine + bismuth + actinium + silver + cesium + neodymium + magnesium + xenon + samarium + scandium + europium + berkelium + palladium + antimony + thulium

But there's more: if we replace each element by its atomic number (position in the Periodic Table), there is still equality:

1 + 40 + 50 + 8 + 75 + 78 + 52 + 65 +102 + 24 + 26 + 27 + 6 + 13 + 44 + 14 + 70 + 72 + 11 + 34 + 58 + 25 + 76 + 92 + 28 + 59 + 68 + 23 + 81 + 94


7 + 30 + 45 + 2 + 18 + 93 + 4 + 35 + 71 + 5 + 20 + 90 + 41 + 57 + 80 + 9 + 83 + 89 +47 + 55 + 60 + 12 + 54 + 62 + 21 + 63 + 97 + 46 + 51 + 69



Whoa. That's some freaky stuff, that is.

August 12, 2011

Horse 1219 - Everyone Has Religion... Everyone

On Census night (9th August) we had the opportunity to give the Government and future generations a chance to take a statistical snapshot of the nation.
In particular there was a question to do with what religion someone is. Rather than giving people the opportunity to make a postive statement that they were Atheist or Agnostic, the option given was "No Religion". I happen to think that this is a logical impossibility.
Further research confirms my suspicion that it is a logical impossibility.

In Horse 1128 I gave what I thought was a pretty solid sort of definition for Religion:

"Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it."
As far as I'm concerned it is a case perfect definition, since this describes all people in all circumstances.

I then thought I'd look in a Etymological Latin dictionary to find where the word came from.
religio - Latin, accusitive singular - noun: conscientiousness, scrupulousness
As far as I can make out the word itself was coined by Cicero in his work De Officiis (On Obligations) in 44BC. Most likely the word comes from two roots: re - to go over, and lego - read. Taken together re-lego probably should mean something like "consider carefully", which fits in nicely with the Latin dictionary defnition that I've found.
The problem is that it doesn't really describe anything useful in relation to what people believe.

Then I thought that I'd go to be Bible to find instances of related words. As far as I can tell, the word only appears in two distinct places in the Bible. If so, then this is worth investigating to find out how the word is used in context.

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said:
“People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."
- Acts 17:22-23 NIV

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said,
"Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. "
- Acts 17:22-23 KJV

Where the NIV uses the word "religious" the KJV uses the word "superstitious". So what's going on here?

The Greek word in question is the monster "deisidaimonesterous"; it means something like "more afraid of demons" or "sprits". Given that according to verse 16 "the city was full of idols", the people of Athens obviously did something about what they feared.
Does my definition still hold that Religion is "is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith"? I think so.

The only other place where the word Religion appears is in James' letter:
Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
- James 1: 26-27 NIV

The word which is used here is either "threskeia" or "threskos", they are derivatives and mean a "ritual". Since a ritual is something you do because you believe in something, does my definition again still hold that Religion is "is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith"? I still think so.

I will admit at this point that I actually cheated before coming up with this. There already is a storehouse of words, and that is the Oxford English Dictionary. It says:

religion: n.
2 - a particular system of faith and or practices (OED3)

In the broadest possible sense, everything that people do is based on what they believe. If I go to the train station and buy my weekly ticket for $48, I have faith that my $48 will be accepted as a form of exchange and so does the ticket seller (look up the word "fiduciary" and tell me that it's got nothing to do with faith), since religion is what you do, then by doing something based on what I believe, I prove my faith.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia which ran a "No religion" Campaign during the run up to the 2011 Census, did so because they believe that there is no God. By the fact that they're running the campaign in the first place, they were in fact doing something based on their faith (in this case that there is/are/were no God/god/s).
Again I ask the question, do the Atheist Foundation of Australia by their actions show that they are exercising their religion, considering that is a "set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith"? Yet again I think that the answer is "Yes".

Even someone who chooses to disagree with me and/or write a comment, does so because they believe something to be true.

I think that for anyone to have absolutely no religion at all is a logical impossibility by virtue of the fact that everyone does something. It might not be organised, or formally recognised but it's still something.

August 08, 2011

Horse 1218 - In Defence of Progressive Taxation

I apologise in advance because this is primarily written for an American audience.

One of the questions which has been raging as a result of the US Debt Crisis is the underlying problem that collectively the American people do not pay enough in tax.

As I mentioned in Horse 1215 the US Govt collects about $2,300bn a year in taxation receipts; spends $225bn just on interest of previous debt, $2,108bn on "Mandatory" spending and a further $1397bn on "Discretionary" Spending. Even in the US Federal Government cut all "Discretionary" Spending to ZERO, there'd still be a shortfall of about $333bn.

There are several major problems with raising additional taxation:
- How do you design a system which is fair?
- How do you design a system which is efficient?
- Who should the burden of taxation fall on?

Quite a lot of people are in favour of switching to an entirely Consumption Tax based system. The problem with this is that the burden of payment of a Consumption Tax mainly falls on poorer people by virtue of the fact that they spend a higher proportion of their income.
I have also heard it suggested that a "Flat Tax" is the fairest system. Although this sounds reasonable at first, upon closer inspection, it doesn't really seem all that fair at all.

These then are the main reasons why I think a Progressive Taxation is "fairer".

1. Due to economies of scale, the larger an investment is the higher the likely return on that investment. Since governmental policy is largely shaped by either trying to attract investment or through forces to do with political donations, it follows that the wealthiest people in society also have the greatest degree in shaping governmental policy.

"Inequality impacts politics. Economic power tends to beget political power even in democratic and pluralistic societies. In the United States, this tends to work through campaign contributions and access to politicians that wealth and money tend to buy. This political channel implies another, potentially more powerful and distortionary link between inequality and a non-level playing field. It may also create pathways from inequality to instability, because both the economic and political implications of inequality can create various backlashes."
- Daron Acemoglu, The Economist 23rd Jan 2011

2. People on lower incomes have a higher marginal propensity to consume. Their incomes are already more likely to be directed to private firms through retail spending. By giving people on lower incomes a concession, the economy is effectively permanently stimulated.

3. As incomes increase, the marginal utility of money decreases along with the marginal propensity to consume. Because the marginal utility of money decreases the actual burden of taxation is less as incomes increase.

To illustrate this, assume a Flat Tax of 10%.
Someone on Ÿ10,000 a year is always going to miss that next dollar than someone on Ÿ100,000 a year. Although the tax on Ÿ10,000 is only Ÿ1000, for the person on Ÿ10,000 that Ÿ1000 take is very much likely to eat into their quality of life, whereas for someone on Ÿ100,000 the take of Ÿ10,000 doesn't have anything like the same impact. Needless to say that someone on Ÿ1,000,000 if they have Ÿ100,000 taken out in tax they still won't feel it as much as either the persons on either Ÿ10,000 or Ÿ100,000 a year.
(Income in Economics equations is almost always shown as a Y to avoid confusion with I for Interest or the number 1. Ÿ is a good symbol for Income Monies).

As I said in Horse 1024:
"But we'd also have to assume that as people's income increases, then obviously they can spend more right? Well almost, but not quite. For as people's income does go up, although they might buy nicer things, their absolute capability of buying stuff stops at some point. No-one for instance can fill the car with petrol anymore than full. No-one can buy more groceries than they can fit in their house."
- Me, 13 Aug 2009 (Is it plagiarism if you quote yourself?)

4. If things like the Department of Defence are seen as a collective insurance system, then the stability of the economy should also be seen as a collective insurance system. People who benefit the most from the economy's stability, should therefore be liable for the greatest proportion of premium because they derive the greatest benefit from the stability of the economy.

A Gini Co-Efficient of 45 would indicate that in the United States, has a very high degree of income inequality.
Although the calculation to work out what percentage of the population derives what proportion of incomes, it can be taken that:
- The top 20% earn 49.98% of all income
- The top 8% earn 28.50% of all income
- The top 3% earn 17.50% of all income
- The bottom 80% earn 50.02% of all income

To design a "fair" taxation system would logically require that  the top 20% would pay 49.98% of all income taxes and that the bottom 80% would pay 50.02% of all income taxes, no? However, if you look though the actual statistics from the IRS, the top 20% only paid 25.80% percent of income taxes because of tax concessions for the rich whilst, the bottom 80% actually paid 74.20% percent of income taxes despite only earning 50.02% of income. How is that fair?

To address the three questions of fairness, efficiency and who the burden should actually fall on, since there is only one set of taxation codes rather than individual taxation codes for each individual (which would be undoubtedly more fair and make the burden fall where it should, but be less efficient), then that set of taxation codes needs to be more generalised.
To that end a Progressive Taxation system at least makes an attempt to address the above issues whereas a system based on either a Flat Tax or an entirely Consumption Tax based system do not.

August 02, 2011

Horse 1217 - 2013 Chevrolet Malibu... Next Holden Commodore?

I think that you're probably looking either at the next model of the Holden Commodore, or else it's replacement. Wonder why? Well I think it's because of something to do with flagging sales and the initial development costs of the Commodore's replacement.

The following is a short sales review:

2002 - 88,478 - VY
2003 - 86,553 - VY
2004 - 79,170 - VY-VZ
2005 - 66,794 - VZ
2006 - 56,531 - VZ-VE
2007 - 57,307 - VE
2008 - 51,093 - VE
2009 - 44,387 - VE
2010 - 45,956 - VE-VEii

Sales for the Commodore peaked back in 2002 with the previous Third Generation model VY and they've been on the slide since then. The Commodore which has a derivative of GM's LY7 V6 engine seems to be a little too large in size for the market these days.

The Eighth Gen Malibu sits on the same platform as the Opel Insignia which won European Car Of The Year for 2009 and the ill-fated Holden Epica which is horribly unloved by the marketplace.
Currently the Epica gets a 2.5L in-line 6 which puts out a paltry 115kW. The thing is though, that we know that the platform can take a 2.8L Supercharged V6 like it does in the Insignia, or a 3.9L V6 as it does with the American Chevrolet Malibu. Holden if they're smart or indeed forced to would shut down their Australian manufacturing operations and simply purchase American spec-engines.

Since the Malibu/Epica is a slightly smaller car than the current model Commodore, it would make sense to use that as the next model. Holden has already lowered the engine capacity of the Commodore twice from 3.8L to 3.6L and then 3.0L which means to say that even they think that the car is too large.
The Commodore itself has grown twice since the nameplate was first used. From VB-VL (1978-1988) it grew to a bigger platform for VN-VZ (1988-2006) and again with VE in 2006. The current Malibu/Epica is actually a bigger car physically than the VB-VL Commodore and even the HQ-HJ-HX-HZ range of Kingswoods from 1971-1980.

On a slightly related topic, this is the reason I suspect why the V8 Supercars are travelling to Austin, Texas in 2013. Think about it, there is already talk about rebranding Holden's as Chevrolet's whilst over there; I wonder if it might not be permanent.
Holden already sell the Chevrolet Spark, the Chevrolet Aveo, Chevrolet Cruze and the Chevrolet Captiva under its label. Holden already is almost a Chevrolet shelf company and whence the Commodore comes to the end of its model cycle circa 2014-15, are they going to want to spend another $1bn in development like they did with VE?

Holden already appears to be something of a backwater with it's previous two attempts to sell into the US market being totally thwarted. The Monaro was sold as the Pontiac GTO before the whole line was pulled, and the Commodore was sold under the Pontiac G8 badge before the whole Pontiac badge was shut down admist the GFC.

If it comes down to a street fight between Detroit and Elizabeth, I think I know who'd win.