GM: Government Motors

[Aranince]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html

For those of you who don't think Obama is a Socialist, this should be proof enough. I don't care what your opinions are of GM or their CEO. This is not how you fix the problem.

[edesignuk]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=677163

[Sun Baked]

Hmmm... I can see the fed asking the Ford family for all their class B stock if Ford requests government money.

Not like Ford has been doing bad, but they have been seriously missing the mark on timeliness by a year or two with their products -- though they nailed the credit market moves spot on.

---

Funny how Kirk Kerkorian's man on the board and the thorn in GMs side was right about quite a few of the moves needed to be made, way back in 2006.

[yg17]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html

For those of you who don't think Obama is a Socialist, this should be proof enough. I don't care what your opinions are of GM or their CEO. This is not how you fix the problem.

The guy ran the company into the ground and when he got the first round of bailout money, he didn't do a damn thing with it to help the company. I'd force him out too before giving him another dime.

[blackfox]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html

...SNIP... I don't care what your opinions are of GM or their CEO...SNIP...

Aren't those kinda pertinent to the issue?

Your post struck me as odd.

[edesignuk]

Aren't those kinda pertinent to the issue?Don't be so absurd! He's a Socialist damn it and that's the end of it!!

[obeygiant]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html

For those of you who don't think Obama is a Socialist, this should be proof enough. I don't care what your opinions are of GM or their CEO. This is not how you fix the problem.

How would you fix the problem? GM needs a full-right-rudder and usually it takes a new captain to do it.

[leekohler]

Another sensational, wacky thread with no basis for it's claim is started by Aranince! Meanwhile, life continues...;)

[Peace]

In the meantime Wagoner drives away with $20 Million.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7208201&page=1

[rdowns]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html

For those of you who don't think Obama is a Socialist, this should be proof enough. I don't care what your opinions are of GM or their CEO. This is not how you fix the problem.

Not only that, he's black. :rolleyes:

[arkitect]

Not only that, he's black. :rolleyes:

You know… now that you mention it!

:eek:


:D

[obeygiant]

Not only that, he's black. :rolleyes:

Isn't Obama half-black?

[Peace]

Isn't Obama half-black?

No. He's half white.;)

cup half empty or full theory at it's finest.

[iJohnHenry]

How about milk chocolate?? I likes milk chocolate.

[rdowns]

Isn't Obama half-black?

Pretty sure he's half muslim. What do you expect form a guy not born in the US?

[obeygiant]

No. He's half white.;)

cup half empty or full theory at it's finest.

He's mix-race. Some would call it malotto or halfsie.

[yg17]

Pretty sure he's half muslim. What do you expect form a guy not born in the US?

So if he's 50% black, 50% white, 50% Muslim, 100% Kenyan and 100% socialist, then he's 350% of a man :eek:

[obeygiant]

100% Awesome.

http://audibble.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-awesome.jpg

[Peace]

100% Awesome.



Dude. I have a brand new keyboard and monitor. That almost made me spew coffee all over the place.

Priceless!!:D

[BoyBach]

If I've correctly understood the article the President is saying that unless GM and Chrysler sort themselves out they won't receive more taxpayers money to keep them afloat.

How is that "Socialist"? :confused:

[leekohler]

If I've correctly understood the article the President is saying that unless GM and Chrysler sort themselves out they won't receive more taxpayers money to keep them afloat.

How is that "Socialist"? :confused:

We're supposed to just hand over our money and say nothing. That's the free market at work! :rolleyes:

[BoyBach]

We're supposed to just hand over our money and say nothing. That's the free market at work! :rolleyes:


So by trying to protect the interests of the taxpayers and not the stockholders, the Administration is Socialist and the enemy of Capitalism?

Makes sense if you think like a Tinfoil Republican™... self-evidently I don't ! :D

[mgguy]

Just heard that Obama promised US government will guarantee the warranty on all newly purchased GM cars. If this isn't in the socialist tradition, I don't know what is. Next thing you know he will give you uninsured motorist coverage to pay you for damage caused by uninsured drivers who crash into you.

[Shivetya]

Just heard that Obama promised US government will guarantee the warranty on all newly purchased GM cars. If this isn't in the socialist tradition, I don't know what is. Next thing you know he will give you uninsured motorist coverage to pay you for damage caused by uninsured drivers who crash into you.

That is what makes me mad. So he is in effect giving them my money while having the press play along with the idea he is holding out still.

[aquajet]

If you think that this is somehow proof that Obama is a "socialist", then you need to go back and read your theory. To be frank, I somehow doubt that you ever did in the first place.

If the US government to some extent assumes ownership and control over General Motors through the use of tax dollars, yet the relations of production are still that of a capitalist order, meaning the workers who contribute to the construction and sale of vehicles work for a wage and have no control over the value added by their labor, then we are still clearly within the domain of capitalism, or more accurately, state capitalism. The day President Obama announces that all workers for General Motors must assume democratic control and ownership over General Motors is the day that Obama reveals himself as a socialist.

If you wish to criticize Obama's policies, fine. But let's try to get our theory straight once and for all.

[leekohler]

If you think that this is somehow proof that Obama is a "socialist", then you need to go back and read your theory. To be frank, I somehow doubt that you ever did in the first place.

If the US government to some extent assumes ownership and control over General Motors through the use of tax dollars, yet the relations of production are still that of a capitalist order, meaning the workers who contribute to the construction and sale of vehicles work for a wage and have no control over the value added by their labor, then we are still clearly within the domain of capitalism, or more accurately, state capitalism. The day President Obama announces that all workers for General Motors must assume democratic control and ownership over General Motors is the day that Obama reveals himself as a socialist.

If you wish to criticize Obama's policies, fine. But let's try to get our theory straight once and for all.

They always say "socialism" because they have nothing else.

[Raid]

Well I don't see how this is socialist:
In his White House speech, Obama said the companies - and the auto industry - must stand on their own, not as `wards of the state' supported by tax dollars. (Link (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_33314.aspx))

I also find it curious to see the words socialism and socialist to be vilified by some. Perhaps it stems from a very cold-war / 1950's view of socialism and by default "socialist" practices are equally and irrationally feared.

"Socialist" programs can be very beneficial to a society and an economy depending on the economic implications to the population and/or the barriers of entry into a particular industry.

Socialism and Capitalism aren't the demons and angels most make them out to be.

In all honesty I'm still struggling with all these bailouts going on. As an economist, a part of me wants these banks / financial institutions / large companies to collapse and promote more efficient markets. However the chaos that would ensue would hurt everyone and threaten important economic engines like the banking system. So I guess I have to accept what the governments are doing, but I worry that these companies are not being held more accountable for their mistakes. I don't know if Obama has got it right yet, but I do see he's not just handing over the keys to the treasury either. I'd hate to be one of Obama's economic advisors, they have their work cut out for them.

[Dmac77]

The guy ran the company into the ground and when he got the first round of bailout money, he didn't do a damn thing with it to help the company. I'd force him out too before giving him another dime.

The point is, the government shouldn't be forcing anyone out of GM or any company. By doing that, Obama is basically saying that he runs the company and they do what he says. Personally I hope they go bankrupt so that they can void all of their union contracts and bring in non-unionized labor. That would solve all of GM's problems.

Don

[leekohler]

The point is, the government shouldn't be forcing anyone out of GM or any company. By doing that, Obama is basically saying that he runs the company and they do what he says. Personally I hope they go bankrupt so that they can void all of their union contracts and bring in non-unionized labor. That would solve all of GM's problems.

Don

If I were your dad you'd be getting a serious whoopin' about right now. ;)

Why do you think it's all the unions' fault? They've made concessions. The reason GM is having trouble is their leadership. They aren't designing or building cars anyone wants. If they did, the union wouldn't matter at all.

[yojitani]

Personally I hope they go bankrupt so that they can void all of their union contracts and bring in non-unionized labor. That would solve all of GM's problems.

:eek:
Love the thinking, solve problems for the company so the workers can have more of them. wonderful.

Thankfully, Obama appointed Hilda Solis to Secretary of Labor so the anti-union, anti-worker people can stew for a while.

[Dmac77]

If I were your dad you'd be getting a serious whoopin' about right now. ;)

Why do you think it's all the unions' fault? They've made concessions. The reason GM is having trouble is their leadership. They aren't designing or building cars anyone wants. If they did, the union wouldn't matter at all.

The latest data I can find is from 2005, but it will have to do.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/

If GM didn't have to pay out so much in benefits and legacy costs (pensions) they would probably be profitable. Even though the UAW have made concessions, GM still has higher costs then Toyota when it comes to benefits.

Don

[leekohler]

The latest data I can find is from 2005, but it will have to do.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/

If GM didn't have to pay out so much in benefits and legacy costs (pensions) they would probably be profitable. Even though the UAW have made concessions, GM still has higher costs then Toyota when it comes to benefits.

Don

So let me get this straight- you would allow GM to do away with existing pensions? Are you serious?

[bartelby]

The point is, the government shouldn't be forcing anyone out of GM or any company. By doing that, Obama is basically saying that he runs the company and they do what he says. Personally I hope they go bankrupt so that they can void all of their union contracts and bring in non-unionized labor. That would solve all of GM's problems.

Don

You really don't have any idea do you...
:rolleyes:

[yg17]

The point is, the government shouldn't be forcing anyone out of GM or any company. By doing that, Obama is basically saying that he runs the company and they do what he says. Personally I hope they go bankrupt so that they can void all of their union contracts and bring in non-unionized labor. That would solve all of GM's problems.

Don

No one forced anyone to resign. The government said that if they want another dime of bailout money, the CEO has to step down. The CEO was free to stay put and not accept another dime of bailout money. He chose to step down.

[rdowns]

The latest data I can find is from 2005, but it will have to do.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/

If GM didn't have to pay out so much in benefits and legacy costs (pensions) they would probably be profitable. Even though the UAW have made concessions, GM still has higher costs then Toyota when it comes to benefits.

Don

This crap has been debunked numerous times in the various threads. Their current labor costs are about the same as foreign makers with plants in the US.

[BoyBach]

The point is, the government shouldn't be forcing anyone out of GM or any company. By doing that, Obama is basically saying that he runs the company and they do what he says. Personally I hope they go bankrupt so that they can void all of their union contracts and bring in non-unionized labor. That would solve all of GM's problems.

Don


Damn those troublesome workers with their ruinous demands for decent pay and working conditions! Damn them with their demands for healthcare! Damn them all to hell!

:rolleyes:

[bartelby]

Damn those troublesome workers with their ruinous demands for decent pay and working conditions! Damn them with their demands for healthcare! Damn them all to hell!

:rolleyes:

Exactly!

You want a day off?

You're fired!!!!

[.Andy]

The point is, the government shouldn't be forcing anyone out of GM or any company. By doing that, Obama is basically saying that he runs the company and they do what he says. Personally I hope they go bankrupt so that they can void all of their union contracts and bring in non-unionized labor. That would solve all of GM's problems.
Presumably you'll avoid all the benefits that unions have afforded workers when you start your career Dmac77?

[aquajet]

How delightfully authoritarian to use the legal system to subvert people's ability to organize themselves and use their collective power to improve their lots in life. Surely by preventing people from associating with one another, we can solve all of GM's economic problems.

Are you listening to yourself? Sheesh. :confused:

[OllyW]

You really don't have any idea do you...
:rolleyes:

At least he's consistent. ;)

[Dmac77]

So let me get this straight- you would allow GM to do away with existing pensions? Are you serious?

Yes, I would let GM do away with existing pensions.

Don

[Eraserhead]

Just heard that Obama promised US government will guarantee the warranty on all newly purchased GM cars.

Actually its the only way they might actually sell any cars to anyone who isn't a moron so its a good idea as it might actually save the company.

If I was looking to buy a car I wouldn't buy a GM car as they are likely to go out of business - regardless of whether it was good or not. Well that is unless I got a large discount to cover the risk of the warranty*, but it'd probably need to be fairly substantial (like 20-25%) and that would make it even harder for them to make any money.

* and you'd either need to get some insurance to cover the warranty with a third party, or be able to afford to buy a replacement quickly if the car broke.

[leekohler]

Yes, I would let GM do away with existing pensions.

Don

And what do you propose to do about all the elderly who depend on those pensions?

[skunk]

And what do you propose to do about all the elderly who depend on those pensions?Soylent Green.

[NT1440]

And what do you propose to do about all the elderly who depend on those pensions?

Well thats what they get for believing they were going to get what their legally binding (minus loopholes) contracts said they were gonna get. :rolleyes:


I really don't understand how that poster thinks when it comes to the effect on people. I do know where it comes from as I was kind of in that place merely a few years ago, basically, we still both have a lot of growing up to do.

[iJohnHenry]

Well I don't see how this is socialist:

Statements and actions* vary widely.

*Your results may suck.

Soylent Green.

I am not eating Edward G. Robinson. :mad:

[yg17]

And what do you propose to do about all the elderly who depend on those pensions?

Screw them! That 96 year old alzheimer's paitent who's stuck in a wheelchair in a nursing home should go out and get a job and stop relying on socialist handouts from GM!

[quagmire]

If I've correctly understood the article the President is saying that unless GM and Chrysler sort themselves out they won't receive more taxpayers money to keep them afloat.

How is that "Socialist"? :confused:

I am not sure with Chrysler, but if GM doesn't make the deadline they will go into a pre-packaged Chap 11 and it will probably cost a lot of money to keep GM out of Chapter 7 as many consumers will shun away because they won't buy something as big of an investment as a car from a company that could go out of business( and that many people think bankruptcy means the company has failed already). And unlike the loans, the money that will keep GM afloat will probably not be paid back.

[yojitani]

Yes, I would let GM do away with existing pensions.

Don

Don, as I understand it, you're young and couldn't be expected to understand the history of the labor movement. Youth is a defense, but the problem is that the labor movement is poorly understood by adults of any political persuasion. Dislike of unions accompanies the history of unions, of course, since for every group of workers who win new benefits, there is a group with vested interests who lose out (usually smaller than the group that benefits). The thing is, the working conditions that people take for granted today were won, not granted by a progressive or benevolent capitalist. Turning back the clock enables those gains to be progressively eroded. And the clock has been turning back rapidly since Ronald Reagan (there were problems before, McCarthy era included)...

[Dont Hurt Me]

In the meantime Wagoner drives away with $20 Million.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7208201&page=1Just amazing hence a bankrupt company we get to pay for.....and he gets 20 million. Another example how pure capitalism is nothing more then pure greed for the greedy class. I wonder what that 20 million would do for the employees? Maybe buy a few accountants who can count?

[MacHipster]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html

For those of you who don't think Obama is a Socialist, this should be proof enough. I don't care what your opinions are of GM or their CEO. This is not how you fix the problem.

I know you won't reply, but I'll give it a go. Do you even know what a socialist or socialism is?

[obeygiant]

What would it take for someone to call Obama a socialist?

Because no matter what he does there will probably be some disagreement about what his actual ideals are.

[NT1440]

What would it take for someone to call Obama a socialist?

Because no matter what he does there will probably be some disagreement about what his actual ideals are.

Well for one, itd help if those making that claim actually had a real knowledge of what socialism is....

[mgguy]

What would it take for someone to call Obama a socialist?

Because no matter what he does there will probably be some disagreement about what his actual ideals are.

Well for one, itd help if those making that claim actually had a real knowledge of what socialism is....

People do not all agree on what "socialism" means and what a "socialist" is. There isn't one strict definition that everyone agrees on, just as there is not one definition of "war criminal" or "hate monger," labels that many in PSRI have tagged on Bush. I think in the case of the OP and those who share his point of view on this, it is the accumulation of non-capitalistic enhanced policies and actions by Obama that lead some people to call him a socialist.

[NT1440]

People do not all agree on what "socialism" means and what a "socialist" is. There isn't one strict definition that everyone agrees on, just as there is not one definition of "war criminal" or "hate monger," labels that many in PSRI have tagged on Bush. I think in the case of the OP and those who share his point of view on this, it is the accumulation of non-capitalistic enhanced policies and actions by Obama that lead some people to call him a socialist.

Ah, so youre either capitilist or socialist! What a world.

Sounds vaguely like "Your either with us, or against us" I wouldn't doubt it shares a common thought process....

[Ugg]

People do not all agree on what "socialism" means and what a "socialist" is. There isn't one strict definition that everyone agrees on, just as there is not one definition of "war criminal" or "hate monger," labels that many in PSRI have tagged on Bush. I think in the case of the OP and those who share his point of view on this, it is the accumulation of non-capitalistic enhanced policies and actions by Obama that lead some people to call him a socialist.

What might those be? In plain english of course, overuse of truly non-sensical jargon is a sure sign of desperation, in my most humble opinion.

[SactoGuy18]

The guy ran the company into the ground and when he got the first round of bailout money, he didn't do a damn thing with it to help the company. I'd force him out too before giving him another dime.

I actually agree with your comments.

I've said that GM would best survive if they are nothing more than Chevrolet (family cars plus Corvette), Cadillac (luxury cars) and GMC (light trucks and SUVs). GM should have done this drastic reorganization at least two years ago. Let's hope the Obama Administration takes my suggestion and reduces GM to this.

[quagmire]

I actually agree with your comments.

I've said that GM would best survive if they are nothing more than Chevrolet (family cars plus Corvette), Cadillac (luxury cars) and GMC (light trucks and SUVs). GM should have done this drastic reorganization at least two years ago. Let's hope the Obama Administration takes my suggestion and reduces GM to this.

Easier said then done. Does no one remember the mess that was Oldsmobile? It cost GM $2 billion to shut down Olds. There are so many laws making it hard for automakers to get rid of brands. With Pontiac and Saturn being killed definitely and Hummer and Saab trying to be sold, but might be killed. GM is probably going to need ~$10 billion to shut those divisions down......

[aquajet]

Just heard that Obama promised US government will guarantee the warranty on all newly purchased GM cars. If this isn't in the socialist tradition, I don't know what is...

Sorry mgguy, but that is not the "socialist tradition". If you would like an easy to read introduction to the socialist tradition, I suggest that you find yourself a copy of The Meaning of Marxism by Paul D'Amato, available through Haymarket Books. If you would like to see examples of ordinary people in the 21st century engaging in the socialist tradition, look into the recuperated factory movement that is occurring in Argentina. The Take (http://www.thetake.org/) is an excellent documentary about the struggle of workers at the Zanon ceramics factory in Neuquén Argentina, ordinary people taking control of their own lives squarely in the socialist tradition.

[blackfox]

Easier said then done. Does no one remember the mess that was Oldsmobile? It cost GM $2 billion to shut down Olds. There are so many laws making it hard for automakers to get rid of brands. With Pontiac and Saturn being killed definitely and Hummer and Saab trying to be sold, but might be killed. GM is probably going to need ~$10 billion to shut those divisions down......
I quoted your post for two reasons:

1. You bring up an interesting point that frankly I hadn't thought much about. Thanks.

2. As a long-time Saab owner (on my sixth), I am so interested in Saab's fate, and GM's also (as far as their fates are connected).

On a strictly personal note, I find Saab to be a unique brand that GM went the wrong direction with - yet I hold out hope. I hope it Survives - as I will otherwise be driving used for the rest of my life.

[mgguy]

What might those be? In plain english of course, overuse of truly non-sensical jargon is a sure sign of desperation, in my most humble opinion.

The bailout of GM can reasonably be considered a "non-capitalistic enhanced" option because a strictly capitalistic approach would allow market forces to determine GM's fate.

[AP_piano295]

The latest data I can find is from 2005, but it will have to do.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/

If GM didn't have to pay out so much in benefits and legacy costs (pensions) they would probably be profitable. Even though the UAW have made concessions, GM still has higher costs then Toyota when it comes to benefits.

Don

Your right, the fact that the company chose to invest its money in SUV's like the h2 instead of reasonable cars that people might actually want to buy when fuel prices inevitably (and predictably) exploded, had nothing to do.

damn union workers...

[drewsof07]

Your right, the fact that the company chose to invest its money in SUV's like the h2 instead of reasonable cars that people might actually want to buy when fuel prices inevitably (and predictably) exploded, had nothing to do.

damn union workers...

They just put their money where the market demanded: Expensive cars people couldn't afford, on loans they can't pay back ;)

[ProwlingTiger]

Coincidentally all my family's vehicles are now Ford :D Glad to be with a company that operates in the free market with capitalism...while we still have it.

[stevento]

Another sensational, wacky thread with no basis for it's claim is started by Aranince! Meanwhile, life continues...;)

what's so bad about sensationalism?

[hulugu]

The bailout of GM can reasonably be considered a "non-capitalistic enhanced" option because a strictly capitalistic approach would allow market forces to determine GM's fate.

How would a "strictly capitalistic" approach operate? How does this account for GM's numerous assets and liabilities? What would a market based approach look like?

what's so bad about sensationalism?

Simply put, it's the exchange of accuracy for excitement. It's a distortion.

[quagmire]

Coincidentally all my family's vehicles are now Ford :D Glad to be with a company that operates in the free market with capitalism...while we still have it.

No, you're just lucky Ford grabbed as much money as it could before the credit crunch. :D

Sigh, I remember back in 2006 we had doom and gloom articles about GM. Then in 2007, there were positive articles about GM. Saying how they cut $9 billion of costs, renegotiated the UAW contracts, etc. 2007 was also Ford's turn for the doom and gloom from there huge loss in 2006. Now things have switched again.....

[bartelby]

Coincidentally all my family's vehicles are now Ford :D Glad to be with a company that operates in the free market with capitalism...while we still have it.


Didn't Ford receive money from the Gov?

[quagmire]

Didn't Ford receive money from the Gov?

No, they did not.

[jeremybuff]

I find it absolutely hilarious how many people stick up for this fool Obama. Now he wants to sell Chrysler to Fiat. And you SERIOUSLY tell me that he is not socialist? You might be right, that's beyond socialism.

B.O. and the White House is not even trying to be sly about it, they're having it all play out in plain view. They don't care. I am disgusted by not just his behavior, but the rest of the democrat's behavior. I am very ashamed that we have a President who doesn't give a damn about the American people's best interests in terms of the economy. What a fool.

When he got behind that massive spending bill.. that's when it cemented it for me.

[Eraserhead]

I find it absolutely hilarious how many people stick up for this fool Obama. Now he wants to sell Chrysler to Fiat. And you SERIOUSLY tell me that he is not socialist?

How is it socialist to sell a company to another company? And I really don't understand how that is beyond socialist i.e. communist...

[jeremybuff]

How is it socialist to sell a company to another company? And I really don't understand how that is beyond socialist i.e. communist...

How is it socialist to sell a company to another company? Is that really what you just asked? Or better yet, is that actually what you see this at? Whew, do you have somethin' to learn about socialism and the free market system.

[Eraserhead]

How is it socialist to sell a company to another company? Is that really what you just asked?

Yes

Or better yet, is that actually what you see this at?

Yes

Whew, do you have somethin' to learn about socialism and the free market system.

Do tell.

[edesignuk]

I find it absolutely hilarious how many people stick up for this fool Obama. Now he wants to sell Chrysler to Fiat. And you SERIOUSLY tell me that he is not socialist? You might be right, that's beyond socialism.

B.O. and the White House is not even trying to be sly about it, they're having it all play out in plain view. They don't care. I am disgusted by not just his behavior, but the rest of the democrat's behavior. I am very ashamed that we have a President who doesn't give a damn about the American people's best interests in terms of the economy. What a fool. So continuing to pour money (your money) down the pan with a company whose management are obviously failing is the best idea?

[.Andy]

How would a "strictly capitalistic" approach operate?
I'm going to guess that mgguy uses "strictly capitalistic" as a synonym for "free market".

[Eraserhead]

I'm going to guess that mgguy uses "strictly capitalistic" as a synonym for "free market".

In which case GM and Crysler would be allowed to go bankrupt and probably bring down most of the US car industry.

[.Andy]

In which case GM and Crysler would be allowed to go bankrupt and probably bring down most of the US car industry.
Which is one such reason (out of many) that extreme free-market ideology is a ridiculous and indefensible concept. But for some reason the simplicity of it really tends to appeal to people of a certain character.....

[Eraserhead]

Which is one such reason (out of many) that extreme free-market ideology is a ridiculous and indefensible concept. But for some reason the simplicity of it really tends to appeal to people of a certain character.....

You also shouldn't forget that then at least some of the US airlines and Amtrak and most of if not all of the public transport systems in US cities would also go bankrupt...

Edits in italics.

[takao]

since 2000 GM lost 98% of it's stock value
in the last 4 years GM lost 82 billion dollars
market share went from 28% to 18%
fired ten thousands of workers

all under command of rick wagoner who took home a salary of more than 50 million dollar + additional options (10 million) + 20 million retirement

that somebody wants that guy out of the company before giving them additional billions is hardly what i call socialism

[leekohler]

since 2000 GM lost 98% of it's stock value
in the last 4 years GM lost 82 billion dollars
market share went from 28% to 18%
fired ten thousands of workers

all under command of rick wagoner who took home a salary of more than 50 million dollar + additional options (10 million) + 20 million retirement

that somebody wants that guy out of the company before giving them additional billions is hardly what i call socialism

Exactly- it's called smart.

[skunk]

Could we have a sticky in the PRSI forum giving a definition of "socialism"? A number of posters seem to have absolutely no idea what it means, which renders their contributions completely meaningless.

[BigHungry04]

So continuing to pour money (your money) down the pan with a company whose management are obviously failing is the best idea?

It is when you think about what the government is doing with the banking system. If they're doing that for the banking system time and time again, they should do that for the auto companies too.

But wait a tick, the auto companies did not contribute as much to anyone's campaigns last year because they were trying to save themselves. Also the UAW is also at least partly to blame. They could accept lower wages, they're making about $75 an hour if you include benefits and the funding of the pension plan. I happen to know people who work at the Toyota Plant in Georgetown, KY and they only make about $30 an hour, including benefits. The UAW has tried to organize there and they fail every time.

No one at the UAW believe that they will lose their jobs. Until that point they will continue to act as they are acting. If you're not threatened with job loss are you going to vote to accept a pay cut? The answer is no. No one will accept a pay cut if they're not going to lose their job if they don't take the pay cut. Wages are downwardly rigid because of this. Simple Keynesian Macroeconomics.

[Veldek]

It is when you think about what the government is doing with the banking system. If they're doing that for the banking system time and time again, they should do that for the auto companies too.That's because the wrong bank failing would have desastrous consequences on the whole economy, while a failing auto company would "just" mean a disaster for the workers (which is bad, no question, but not as bad as the other).

[drewsof07]

Looks like our tax cut may arrive a bit later than expected :rolleyes:

[synth3tik]

How would you fix the problem?

I'm sorry, but you can hardly call Obama a Socialist when it was the CEO telling the feds they needed billions of dollars because they can not run companies.

[Desertrat]

Once again I bring up the term "Statist". It describes Obama's policies quite well. It obviates the need to worry about how "Socialism" gets defined. Statism is simply the idea that increases in the power of the central government are by definition good. It includes the belief that government can and should solve all manner of problems.

Obama is certainly extending the power of the federal government over the private sector.

The problem here is that there is nobody in government who's any smarter about the marketplace than those in the private sector. There are too many decisions to be made on a daily basis by millions of individual people.

Example: Take, say, only six variables in some manufacturing process. Parts and pieces, labor, conveyance...You then have n(n-1) or n-factorial possibilities, which = 30 decisions. If each has a yes/no option, you immediately have the problem of two to the thirtieth power in options. It's like the old parable of grains of rice on a checkerboard.

And it's beyond the power of central planners to deal with it.

What nobody has analyzed in the common journals is the why of the problems of GM et al. I'll try.

For a given window-sticker $$$ amount, you can only build a certain amount of car. The amount of car is a function of input costs. The obvious items are the materials and labor. You also have the amortized costs of investments in buildings and equipment. Then you have "benefits". These include health care for the workforce and the retirement system with the monthly stipend and healthcare benefits.

These benefits are not part of the input costs for Mr. Toyota and Mr. Audi. They have been transferred to the indigenous taxpayers by their governments. Thus Mr. Toyota can provide more car for a given window-sticker price.

What this means is that there is no hope for President Obama's takeover of GM to ever bring about any sort of profitability or gain in market share. Can't produce as much car for the money. At least, not without the imposition of tariffs on foreign imports.

Why is FoMoCo better off? Well, in large part because they moved a lot of their operation to Canada (Benefits, remember?) and have built one of the world's newest and most high-tech assembly plants in Brazil.

What it is, is, we have legislated and unionated ourselves out of world markets. We have made ourselves non-competitive in many industrial sectors; cars are just the present case of belaboring the obvious.

'Rat

[Veldek]

For a given window-sticker $$$ amount, you can only build a certain amount of car. The amount of car is a function of input costs. The obvious items are the materials and labor. You also have the amortized costs of investments in buildings and equipment. Then you have "benefits". These include health care for the workforce and the retirement system with the monthly stipend and healthcare benefits.

These benefits are not part of the input costs for Mr. Toyota and Mr. Audi. They have been transferred to the indigenous taxpayers by their governments. Thus Mr. Toyota can provide more car for a given window-sticker price.

What this means is that there is no hope for President Obama's takeover of GM to ever bring about any sort of profitability or gain in market share. Can't produce as much car for the money. At least, not without the imposition of tariffs on foreign imports. Just so I understand, these benefits are health care and pensions? So when Obama does the same like the respective governments did for Audi and Toyota (e.g. introduce health care), this would also solve the problems for the auto companies in the long run?

[leekohler]

Just so I understand, these benefits are health care and pensions? So when Obama does the same like the respective governments did for Audi and Toyota (e.g. introduce health care), this would also solve the problems for the auto companies in the long run?

IMO- that's one of the biggest reasons our companies can't compete. They have to pay for our health care, which is ridiculously more expensive than any place else. If we had universal health care, that would free up a lot of cash for our corporations. They could lower prices and be more competitive.

[Veldek]

IMO- that's one of the biggest reasons our companies can't compete. They have to pay for our health care, which is ridiculously more expensive than any place else. If we had universal health care, that would free up a lot of cash for our corporations. They could lower prices and be more competitive.But the retirement part has been quite generous in Germany though, too (so I assume also for Audi workers). My colleagues all have about enough for retirement with what you get from the government and from the company. My own company retirement bonus won't be enough to buy my wife and me a dinner in a restaurant by the time I retire. The companies had to change this about 10 years ago, because they couldn't afford it anymore.

Well, forget that. I reckon a comparison between countries doesn't lead anywhere.

[Raid]

Once again I bring up the term "Statist". It describes Obama's policies quite well. It obviates the need to worry about how "Socialism" gets defined. Statism is simply the idea that increases in the power of the central government are by definition good. It includes the belief that government can and should solve all manner of problems.

Obama is certainly extending the power of the federal government over the private sector. Well here's the problem, if you give mismanaged companies a blank big fat cheque from the public treasury how can the people ensure that their money is spent in their best interest without government conditions? What guarantees does the general public have that this private company will use the bailout in a fashion that supports the lender (i.e. Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer)

For a given window-sticker $$$ amount, you can only build a certain amount of car. The amount of car is a function of input costs. The obvious items are the materials and labor. You also have the amortized costs of investments in buildings and equipment. Then you have "benefits". These include health care for the workforce and the retirement system with the monthly stipend and healthcare benefits.

These benefits are not part of the input costs for Mr. Toyota and Mr. Audi. They have been transferred to the indigenous taxpayers by their governments. Thus Mr. Toyota can provide more car for a given window-sticker price.

What this means is that there is no hope for President Obama's takeover of GM to ever bring about any sort of profitability or gain in market share. Can't produce as much car for the money. At least, not without the imposition of tariffs on foreign imports. This isn't really a fantastic analogy, you could argue that it's the quality of the build you get for that window-sticker price; the company with the lower sticker for the same quality would win. Also those cost input factors above do apply to "Mr. Toyota and Mr. Audi" as well (input for materials, capital invested in buildings and equipment). Union negotiated wages and benefits are certainly one variable factor; but are unlikely to be that different in the same labour market. I don't think Audi produces cars domestically here (and probably would already be paying a tariff on goods sold), but I know Toyota produces cars in North America. Generally sustained tariffs serve to weaken economies (often because retaliatory tariffs are applied to other goods imported by the other economy); in the great depression such tariffs were applied to protect domestic industry and it failed to boost the domestic economy.

[takao]

Once again I bring up the term "Statist". It describes Obama's policies quite well. It obviates the need to worry about how "Socialism" gets defined. Statism is simply the idea that increases in the power of the central government are by definition good. It includes the belief that government can and should solve all manner of problems.

Obama is certainly extending the power of the federal government over the private sector.

The problem here is that there is nobody in government who's any smarter about the marketplace than those in the private sector. There are too many decisions to be made on a daily basis by millions of individual people.

Example: Take, say, only six variables in some manufacturing process. Parts and pieces, labor, conveyance...You then have n(n-1) or n-factorial possibilities, which = 30 decisions. If each has a yes/no option, you immediately have the problem of two to the thirtieth power in options. It's like the old parable of grains of rice on a checkerboard.

And it's beyond the power of central planners to deal with it.

What nobody has analyzed in the common journals is the why of the problems of GM et al. I'll try.

For a given window-sticker $$$ amount, you can only build a certain amount of car. The amount of car is a function of input costs. The obvious items are the materials and labor. You also have the amortized costs of investments in buildings and equipment. Then you have "benefits". These include health care for the workforce and the retirement system with the monthly stipend and healthcare benefits.

These benefits are not part of the input costs for Mr. Toyota and Mr. Audi. They have been transferred to the indigenous taxpayers by their governments. Thus Mr. Toyota can provide more car for a given window-sticker price.

What this means is that there is no hope for President Obama's takeover of GM to ever bring about any sort of profitability or gain in market share. Can't produce as much car for the money. At least, not without the imposition of tariffs on foreign imports.

Why is FoMoCo better off? Well, in large part because they moved a lot of their operation to Canada (Benefits, remember?) and have built one of the world's newest and most high-tech assembly plants in Brazil.

What it is, is, we have legislated and unionated ourselves out of world markets. We have made ourselves non-competitive in many industrial sectors; cars are just the present case of belaboring the obvious.

'Rat

problems here are:
1. audi and toyota cheaper than Gm?
around here Opel, Chevrolet are considerable cheaper and give more stuff away than the competition
yet nobody wants their cars despite lower "window sticker prices" and more rebates

2. if unions are the problem then why is germany in completely different position in terms of car manufacturers and producing exports
unions are notoriously strong in germany

3.nationalized health care giving the economy an advantage ? who are you and what have you done to desertrat ?


the problems is that for too long GM etc. produced cars that nobody wanted with bad quality and lackluster design and decade old engines
and they won't be able to get that reputation away anytime soon (Opel has the worst reputation with the generation 35years and younger ... it can be roughly compared to the "oldsmobile situation")

edit: just yesterday i watched a car test about the new e-class and yikes instead of driving around in barcelona they decided to try if they can get back to germany on a single tank filling (with driving normally around 100-120 km/h) and they did 1181 km without filling up well below 5 liters per 100 km
and at the pump they still had 3 liters left in the tank or nearly 60 km which would have meant that they made it even back to stuttgart if they hadn't chickened out
i dare you to try that in an Opel

[Gelfin]

The problem here is that there is nobody in government who's any smarter about the marketplace than those in the private sector. There are too many decisions to be made on a daily basis by millions of individual people.

Without arguing for central planning, which I agree is a source of inefficiency but is also an irrelevant distraction meant only to raise the specter of communism, the issue is not who is smart. The Wall Street guys who came up with ways to make themselves insanely rich off other people buying houses they couldn't afford were smart. Possibly brilliant.

The issue is instead one of priorities. The priority at GM is GM, not the whole of the economy, and that is as it should be. The whole of the economy is properly the purview of the government. We've spent a number of years flirting with the hands-off approach that says if all actors attend to their own interests without interference the whole of the economy will keep an even keel as if by magic. That theory got us where we are now. It has been refuted by reality just as surely as the polar opposite experiment of the Soviet Union was.

I'll have a feeling I'll be saying this to people until the day I die: Any philosophy implemented to its logical extremes will result in disaster.

A corollary: If your philosophy requires everyone to follow it for it to work, you will fail.

It's funny how corporatists ramble on about how the piecemeal action of the market magically turns out a robust gestalt economy, but they insist on a one-size-fits-all economic philosophy, not coincidentally the one that allows them to enrich themselves, legitimately or otherwise, most expediently.

Real solutions in so complex a system as a national economy are messy patchwork affairs that stack patch upon patch to remedy the unintended consequences of the last patch. How have you gotten as old as you say without realizing that that's the reality, not a temporarily screwed-up intermediate state waiting for the silver bullet solution that will work for every case and we won't have to touch ever again (a dream laissez-faire disciples and communists have in common)?

Come visit the middle ground. We're not exciting, but we're nice folks.

Why is FoMoCo better off? Well, in large part because they moved a lot of their operation to Canada (Benefits, remember?) and have built one of the world's newest and most high-tech assembly plants in Brazil.

What it is, is, we have legislated and unionated ourselves out of world markets. We have made ourselves non-competitive in many industrial sectors; cars are just the present case of belaboring the obvious.

UAW isn't the problem many make it out to be (http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/04/detroit-labor-uaw-biz-manufacturing-cz_jm_1205union.html). Union obligations are less than ten percent of the cost of a GM vehicle. Suppose all those obligations were wiped clean tomorrow (as frankly they may be for all we know). If GM lowers the price of cars ten percent, they're losing just as much money as they were before, but suppose they did. Do you think a Chevy Malibu at $20k instead of $22k would cause the sort of surge in demand necessary to save the company? You can get an Accord for that money. UAW is a convenient scapegoat set up by people with a straightforward union-busting agenda. GM's problems run way deeper than the union.

However, in reference to the highlighted aside, am I to understand that "statism" is okay when it's some other country's centrally managed bureaucracy that American companies are benefitting from, so long as they don't try to bring it home with them?

Anyway, in response to your charge that Obama is a "statist," I will counter that he is still far more corporatist than is probably good for us. Obama is hardly shaking up the common "what's good for corporations is good for America" platform of Washington. He is at the stick of a plane that's run out of fuel, and my chief concern is that he seems to be trying to keep it in the air rather than looking for someplace to bring it down safely.

[rdowns]

That's because the wrong bank failing would have desastrous consequences on the whole economy, while a failing auto company would "just" mean a disaster for the workers (which is bad, no question, but not as bad as the other).

Failure of GM and Chrysler would be far worse than only their workers. It has been estimated that 1 in 12 jobs in our economy is auto related. Even if that's overstated, were they to go away, hundreds of thousands of auto related workers (parts suppliers to GM/Chrysler) would also lose their jobs. Thousands of retail businesses located near these plants and factories would go under. So we'd have several hundred thousand no longer paying taxes (huge hit to state and local govts) and collecting unemployment benefits. This would be a huge hit on the economy.

[Eraserhead]

It has been estimated that 1 in 12 jobs in our economy is auto related.

Wow, that's quite a large percentage.

[Desertrat]

takao, wrong question. :) You must compare model by model across the product line. As a generality, American buyers look to some limiting amount of monthly payment when buying, so you can't compare a Ford Escort's production cost with that of a Toyota Camry.

I have read that for FoMoCo, as much money is spent on employee medical benefits as for the steel in the cars. Another number which has been publicized--IIRC, for GM--is that the medical benefits are roughly $1,500 per car. When you look at a window-sticker price around $10K (Ford Escort, a few years back), that's a lot less car than otherwise...

As far as quality goes, I had a bought-used '95 GMC PU which gave me some 60,000 plenty-good miles. My present '00 GMC had 50,000 miles on it when I bought it. I've put some 120,000 miloes on it with nothing but some common-maintenance brake work. Oil consumption is about a quart per 3,000 to 4,000 miles. Over 100,000 miles on the set of spark plugs which I needlessly replaced. I admit that I do need to use a small bit of glue on the driver's door weatherstrip. :)

I do know as fact that for decades, the UAW fought like mad against robotics. "Save our jobs!" That gave the Japanese a hellacious advantage for a good while. The build time for a Toyota coming down the assembly line was around nine hours. For GM, about 12; Ford, 14, and Chrysler around 17. That's a strong productivity advantage. Iacocca's changes at Chrysler helped immensely.

Gelfin, I don't think it's a fair comparison to relate the Wall Street thing with manufacturing/marketing. Too much government involvement with home-buying/banking/regulations that created an entirely different type of playing field. Manufacturing is pretty much a day-in, day-out thing over decades, whereas the Wall Street debacle resulted from the bubble psychology of, "House prices will keep on going up!"

And I don't think Obama shows any signs at all of "corporatism" beyond campaign contributions. Granted that giant corporations have become intertwined with big government, Obama's philosophy appears to be that of government control over all things.

Regardless, the history of strongly centralized control is inefficiency in decision making. That's why I brought in the factorials. It's a matter of the amount of information input, the numbers of decisions to be made and the available time to arrive at a correct decision. The best management systems have competent people with delegated authority and a high degree of autonomy--and autonomy doesn't occur in government's pyramidal structure.

'Rat

[it5five]

Could we have a sticky in the PRSI forum giving a definition of "socialism"? A number of posters seem to have absolutely mo idea what it means, which renders their contributions completely meaningless.

I second this, and propose that the sticky be written by the socialists here.

[leekohler]

I second this, and propose that the sticky be written by the socialists here.

Thirded. It has to be the most misused term by the American Right. I'm sorry they have no imagination to come up with anything else, but that's not my fault.

[NT1440]

Thirded. It has to be the most misused term by the American Right. I'm sorry they have no imagination to come up with anything else, but that's not my fault.

Possibly, but their constant use of "McCarthyism" a few weeks ago had me laughing. Its like they don't even bother trying to make sense and just let the ranting flow. I quickly stop laughing when I remember that millions of Americans take them for their word and seem to live by it instead of getting informed.

[.Andy]

Thirded. It has to be the most misused term by the American Right. I'm sorry they have no imagination to come up with anything else, but that's not my fault.
It's still funny that they think social policies are so evil.

[xUKHCx]

If you want a sticky you'll have to write it.

Of course just because it has been written does not mean it will become a sticky.

Could be an interesting topic for discussion.

[Peterkro]

Thirded. It has to be the most misused term by the American Right. I'm sorry they have no imagination to come up with anything else, but that's not my fault.

The ludicrous use of libertarian to describe right wing lunacy has got to be right up there.

[takao]

takao, wrong question. :) You must compare model by model across the product line. As a generality, American buyers look to some limiting amount of monthly payment when buying, so you can't compare a Ford Escort's production cost with that of a Toyota Camry.

I have read that for FoMoCo, as much money is spent on employee medical benefits as for the steel in the cars. Another number which has been publicized--IIRC, for GM--is that the medical benefits are roughly $1,500 per car. When you look at a window-sticker price around $10K (Ford Escort, a few years back), that's a lot less car than otherwise...

well you can compare the opel/chevrolet(which means deawoo here) line up with VW and on price/features or monthly payments
in fact the new cruze gonna be the hell of the deal

the problem is that you can buy an opel or chevrolet new but you have to stick to it untill the end
because there is one thing: the used car market is unforgiving to bad image
deawoo, mitsubishi, suzuki , mazda, subaru, opel .. no matter what a Golf TDI twice the age will sell at double the price

and yes that is also killing lexus.. competes on price with mercedes but after 5 years you have to be lucky to get scrap metal prices for it



As far as quality goes, I had a bought-used '95 GMC PU which gave me some 60,000 plenty-good miles. My present '00 GMC had 50,000 miles on it when I bought it. I've put some 120,000 miloes on it with nothing but some common-maintenance brake work. Oil consumption is about a quart per 3,000 to 4,000 miles. Over 100,000 miles on the set of spark plugs which I needlessly replaced. I admit that I do need to use a small bit of glue on the driver's door weatherstrip. :)


Opel increased reliability a lot in the last 2-3 years but i heard: so did Oldsmobile in their last years
it's not gonna overturn the memories of them rusting in the showroom or being the "Mann mit Hut" car of choice ("man with hat" ..a dubious image also mercedes has to fight but they have the ability to do it jokingly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpb5nMwCb3w the last line being "I Knew it .. a hippie"
compared to the super lame Opel ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkTkkKtdBac)

believe it or not in the 60/70ties Opel was known in germany as the sporty quality car for all people and Audi/NSU was the bland, soulless, family car for people who couldn't afford better
funny how things have reversed

[Desertrat]

takao, I know better than most folks how perception affects car markets. Been "mechanicking" on them for a whole bunch of decades, and I've done a bunch of buying and selling of used cars as an avocation for extra income.

Some years back, our magazine, "Consumer Reports" stated that while US-made cars had more dealer comebacks under warranty than did many foreign makes, the used-car buyers of American cars spent less money on repairs. I'd have to go along with that, as I generally bought/sold/traded or did major repairs on three or four cars a year from 1966-1981, and did all the maintenance on my personal cars from 1962 until very recently.

Many European cars have definitely improved since the 1980s, and the same holds true for many of the Japanese cars. The mechanics' view in the 1970s, for instance, was, "There's no such thing as a good used Audi." Soft cast iron in the blocks, which led to accelerated wear by the piston rings. Back then, Datsun cylinder heads would warp with the slightest bit of overheating. Hondas and Mercedes have always been good. Honda engines are built like watches--then and now.

But the air-cooled VW buses were the finest of all. Upright fan, flat fan, hey they were neat! Loved 'em! Weird, though: One mpg better gas mileage with a canoe on top than without. :D

'Rat

"Life begins at 180." -- The Old Racer

[takao]

Many European cars have definitely improved since the 1980s, and the same holds true for many of the Japanese cars. The mechanics' view in the 1970s, for instance, was, "There's no such thing as a good used Audi." Soft cast iron in the blocks, which led to accelerated wear by the piston rings. Back then, Datsun cylinder heads would warp with the slightest bit of overheating. Hondas and Mercedes have always been good. Honda engines are built like watches--then and now.

if hondas just weren't as bland and soulless though (apart of the new civic)
i sure hope they make more awesome designs like the civic in the future

on the other side there are comical stories like my father and his old Mazda 323 from mid 80ties: he and my uncle (owning a big mercedes transporter) were drinking and ran out of cigarettes, upon which my uncle gave my father the keys to the mercedes and said he "has a few boxes in the car"
my father went out to his _own_ car (drunken and all that),_opened_ the car, searched through the car not finding any cigarettes went back and said "there weren't any in the car"
since neither believed the other they went out and there they realized that anything thin and sturdy enough could open _any single mazda 323_

leading to multiple won bets with other mazda owners who didn't believe he could open their car with nothing more than his small keychain pocket knife

needless to say that was the last japanese car for my father


But the air-cooled VW buses were the finest of all. Upright fan, flat fan, hey they were neat! Loved 'em! Weird, though: One mpg better gas mileage with a canoe on top than without. :D


and the air cooled VW engines were the best for those cold alp mountain passes as far as i heard
and the heating was legendary ... as fortold in the "we dried our clothes in december after skiing while sitting in the car in our underpants" story

[Shivetya]

How would you fix the problem?

I'm sorry, but you can hardly call Obama a Socialist when it was the CEO telling the feds they needed billions of dollars because they can not run companies.

Don't just blame the CEO, apparently the head of the UAW didn't even bother to negotiate during the last phase which ended with Waggoners ouster. Basically he has the feeling his friends in Washington and the Obama Administration will cut a deal preserving the UAW's contract as is.

So in other words, the UAW made no attempt to help GM meet the rules required by the end of March deadline. They have not done so with Chrysler either. Apparently the Ford changes went through even over the objections of many of the UAW leaders; as in the workers knew what was at stake.

I really think the UAW leadership expects to be rewarded and have the government pay all the money they claim is owed to them by GM/Chrysler.

[takao]

Don't just blame the CEO, apparently the head of the UAW didn't even bother to negotiate during the last phase which ended with Waggoners ouster. Basically he has the feeling his friends in Washington and the Obama Administration will cut a deal preserving the UAW's contract as is.

So in other words, the UAW made no attempt to help GM meet the rules required by the end of March deadline. They have not done so with Chrysler either. Apparently the Ford changes went through even over the objections of many of the UAW leaders; as in the workers knew what was at stake.

I really think the UAW leadership expects to be rewarded and have the government pay all the money they claim is owed to them by GM/Chrysler.

GM is a global company with afaik less than 60% of workers in the US

you know while Wagoner went home with a pension of 23 million, in Bochum Germany GM is in talks with their workers to reduce the saleries by 14 million for the whole production facility
something which sure isn't going to strengthen their position

[Shivetya]

GM is a global company with afaik less than 60% of workers in the US

you know while Wagoner went home with a pension of 23 million, in Bochum Germany GM is in talks with their workers to reduce the saleries by 14 million for the whole production facility
something which sure isn't going to strengthen their position

Welcome to Facism boys and girls. Government dictating to corporations what is and what isn't. Fat cats still getting their big money if they toe the line.

[Counterfit]

because there is one thing: the used car market is unforgiving to bad image
deawoo, mitsubishi, suzuki , mazda, subaru, opel .. no matter what a Golf TDI twice the age will sell at double the price
My car is worth about $1k more than a Golf TDI twice the age, and with twice the miles. That probably wouldn't be true in places without a real winter.

they realized that anything thin and sturdy enough could open _any single mazda 323_

leading to multiple won bets with other mazda owners who didn't believe he could open their car with nothing more than his small keychain pocket knife

needless to say that was the last japanese car for my father

You should see the key for my Impreza. It's pretty beefy. Certainly much more so than the key I broke in the ignition of my Corsica. That one didn't even work on the door!.

[skunk]

Welcome to Facism boys and girls. Government dictating to corporations what is and what isn't.Hey, wait a minute, I thought that was "Socialism". For goodness' sake make up your mind. Isn't "Facism" something to do with faces?

[rdowns]

Hey, wait a minute, I thought that was "Socialism". For goodness' sake make up your mind. Isn't "Facism" something to do with faces?

OMFG, I love facism in iPhoto '09.

[iJohnHenry]

Small faces. Worth a few vinyl in any collection.

[BoyBach]

Welcome to Facism boys and girls.


I cannot believe that it's 2009 and we're still discriminating against people because of their face. For shame! :mad:

[Desertrat]

To make life a tad easier, consider that for most people, socialism means government control over the means of production, whether by direct ownership or by legislation.

Fascism has been taken to mean that government says, "You own it, but we'll tell you what you can do with it."

In that context, the US has a growing share of both at the same time. :)

Never forget why Norman Thomas quit running for President: "The entire 1932 platform of the Socialist Party has been enacted into law." (Press conference, circa 1964.)

'Rat

[skunk]

Never forget why Norman Thomas quit running for President: "The entire 1932 platform of the Socialist Party has been enacted into law." Never forget why Tom Lehrer quit writing political satire in 1973: "Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger makes political satire obsolete".

[iJohnHenry]

Was Henry the model for Dr. Strangelove??

[Raid]

To make life a tad easier, consider that for most people, socialism means government control over the means of production, whether by direct ownership or by legislation. Your definition is very close, but it's more accurate to say:Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the stateThere is always going to be a struggle to balance the freedoms of the individual and the need/desire to protect the populace. In this instance with the bailouts, the current administration is trying to prevent a broad collapse of a large industrial sector of the North American economy.
Regardless of the success or failure of such actions, it is only prudent that the government set conditions for the rescue packages in order to ensure that the public interest is kept.

If they are doing all they can to ensure the public interests are kept is, IMHO, a much better issue to debate.

[Desertrat]

No argument with the dictionary, but when you're talking with people, you gotta try to have a common usage of a term. That's why I said "most folks".


"There is always going to be a struggle to balance the freedoms of the individual and the need/desire to protect the populace."

From watching the last forty-some years, IMO we seem to have gone overboard with the protection. As in, Broke.

"In this instance with the bailouts, the current administration is trying to prevent a broad collapse of a large industrial sector of the North American economy."

I'm with those who think that failed companies should go bankrupt and start over. Let others buy the assets, reorganize, and begin anew. I don't have any sort of infallible crystal ball, but I think that in spite of this bailout of the investment banks they're going down the tubes anyway. Plus, the nation is headed down because of the incredible debt load that's being created.

'Rat

[Sun Baked]

Do people feel better with Bob Lutz's resignation on March 31st, being delayed until Jan 1, 2010 and him getting more power with respect to product development.

aka, being given a new title and veto power over the CEO to stop funding for any product until it meets the standards of GM, and Lutz's future product plans.

[quagmire]

Do people feel better with Bob Lutz's resignation on March 31st, being delayed until Jan 1, 2010 and him getting more power with respect to product development.

aka, being given a new title and veto power over the CEO to stop funding for any product until it meets the standards of GM, and Lutz's future product plans.

Hell, yeah for me. Lutz has always been a huge RWD product supporter. So maybe now while he has the power green light a RWD DT7 instead of the FWD based one currently being considered..... Cadillac can not be considered a true rival to BMW with their flagship being FWD based on a mainstream platform( Epsilon II).

[Sun Baked]

His retirement as an executive, and shift to advisory role was supposed to start today, hopefully he is being asked to stay...

Really bad day to see if they turned him around this week and tossed him back in the door until the end of the year.

Edit: if he isn't around, the Volt seems like a likely casualty of the automotive taskforce -- since it is expected to be a generation 1 money pit for GM.

[Peterkro]

To make life a tad easier, consider that for most people, socialism means government control over the means of production, whether by direct ownership or by legislation.

Fascism has been taken to mean that government says, "You own it, but we'll tell you what you can do with it."



'Rat

1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.

2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/socialism-def.html


Now lots of people calling themselves Socialists have tried to work government into that definition, personally I don't see how it's possible but as you can see it clearly excludes the use of the word in the way you are trying to define it.

[Desertrat]

But I'm not trying to define it. I said, "most people". How it's used in everyday talk.

Me, I far and away prefer the term "Statist" as being an accurate description of those who want central government control over the economy and the citizenry. The olny difference between a NeoCon Statist and a Liberal Statist is the particular arena of control.

FWIW, your small-c conservative's view of government is, "Just go away and leave me alone." Lot of us like that. Just want to mind our own business. Don't want to "fix" or remake the world; it's messed up enough already.

'Rat

[Peterkro]

But I'm not trying to define it. I said, "most people". How it's used in everyday talk.

Me, I far and away prefer the term "Statist" as being an accurate description of those who want central government control over the economy and the citizenry. The olny difference between a NeoCon Statist and a Liberal Statist is the particular arena of control.

FWIW, your small-c conservative's view of government is, "Just go away and leave me alone." Lot of us like that. Just want to mind our own business. Don't want to "fix" or remake the world; it's messed up enough already.

'Rat

I'd go along with the term "Statist" , the trouble with using Socialist is that aside from a minority of people (some Americans and others) it means even in everyday talk something different from how the minority use it. Now I'm sure you'd agree the subversion of language is one of the weapons used by those who'd want to control us, so we need to be as accurate as possible when using terminology. For what it's worth as an Anarchist my view of the state,any state, is if enough people ignore it they will eventually give up and fade away.At least that is my hope.:)

[Shivetya]

I cannot believe that it's 2009 and we're still discriminating against people because of their face. For shame! :mad:

if you saw mine you wouldn't be shamed :D

[mactastic]

If you think that this is somehow proof that Obama is a "socialist", then you need to go back and read your theory. To be frank, I somehow doubt that you ever did in the first place.
You obviously don't know how this forum works. Let me explain: It is perfectly acceptable to call Obama a socialist day in and day out. However, if George W. Bush is called a fascist, this forum will come to a complete halt and no other discussion is tolerated in the offending thread until it has been sufficiently explained that Bush cannot possibly be a fascist. Followed by accusations that Obama is a socialist...

Yes, I would let GM do away with existing pensions.

Don
Would you let AIG get away with doing away with bonus compensation? You know, the ones they claim they are contractually bound to provide?

Once again I bring up the term "Statist". It describes Obama's policies quite well. It obviates the need to worry about how "Socialism" gets defined. Statism is simply the idea that increases in the power of the central government are by definition good. It includes the belief that government can and should solve all manner of problems.
And I'll bring up the term "Corporatist". It describes Obama's policies quite well. It obviates the need to worry about how "Socialism" or "Statism" gets defined. Corporatism is simply the idea that increases in the power of the largest private corporations are, by definition, good. It includes the belief that corporations can and should solve all manner of problems. It is characterized by the transfer of vast sums of money over to these corporations despite (and indeed often because of) their poor "free market" performance. This occurs to the detriment of the smaller businesses, who are thus made less powerful.

[Sun Baked]

Sucks, that we won't know if Lutz returns as Product Czar for awhile with the new leadership team, some of the NYT reports say he is home recuperating from back surgery. :(

2nd news report of him being asked with no confirmation if he is coming back.