Who killed GM....

[JSpal]

Getting a little off topic here, but I don't think that's a fair criticism of NASA.

NASA decided at some point that manned space flight was not a fiscally sound concept, especially when their typical project spans multiple Presidential terms making funding uncertain.

A lot more can be done for the same amount of money when you factor out the expense of life support systems - much in the way that the military is going to unmanned aircraft. Thus they do as much as they can without humans going along for the ride.

Just because they NASA isn't delivering on the promises made by science fiction 40 years ago doesn't mean they are failing. The private companies that are moving towards manned space flight aren't making the kind of scientific and research advances that NASA is, they are just working on fantasy day trips for the ultra-rich.

If that's what NASA was doing with tax payer money, even if they were successful, I would consider that a major failure.

 

[Cerberus]

Getting a little off topic here, but I don't think that's a fair criticism of NASA.

NASA decided at some point that manned space flight was not a fiscally sound concept, especially when their typical project spans multiple Presidential terms making funding uncertain.

A lot more can be done for the same amount of money when you factor out the expense of life support systems - much in the way that the military is going to unmanned aircraft. Thus they do as much as they can without humans going along for the ride.

Just because they NASA isn't delivering on the promises made by science fiction 40 years ago doesn't mean they are failing. The private companies that are moving towards manned space flight aren't making the kind of scientific and research advances that NASA is, they are just working on fantasy day trips for the ultra-rich.

If that's what NASA was doing with tax payer money, even if they were successful, I would consider that a major failure.

You referenced my point, how successful can any company be when the company’s direction is changed every 4 years when a new administration comes into office. GM might become Obama's pet project, but the next person will have their own pet projects to define their administration.

Additionally the Government cannot effectively run a competitive corporation without infringing on the free enterprise system. For example, when it comes time to purchase government vehicles are they going to purchase from Ford who hasn’t needed bailouts, or are they going to purchase from GM the company they aim to make a profit from.

Let’s pretend they do become competitive and so successful that they put Ford out of business, are they going to bail them out just like they did GM and risk their profits, or are they going to be bias and indulge in the same greed that everyone is faulting the private sector with. It seems they can’t be competitive without destroying the principles of our economy and freedom, thus becoming inherently bias which in the end will lead to the same type of greed.

 

[GT182]

Just because the US Government now has 60% of GM, it doesn't mean GM will become "profitable" again. Look at the national debt and tell me the US Government is capable of being "profitable". It's a verifiable conundrum.

 

[JSpal]

You referenced my point, how successful can any company be when the company’s direction is changed every 4 years when a new administration comes into office. GM might become Obama's pet project, but the next person will have their own pet projects to define their administration.

Additionally the Government cannot effectively run a competitive corporation without infringing on the free enterprise system. For example, when it comes time to purchase government vehicles are they going to purchase from Ford who hasn’t needed bailouts, or are they going to purchase from GM the company they aim to make a profit from.

Let’s pretend they do become competitive and so successful that they put Ford out of business, are they going to bail them out just like they did GM and risk their profits, or are they going to be bias and indulge in the same greed that everyone is faulting the private sector with. It seems they can’t be competitive without destroying the principles of our economy and freedom, thus becoming inherently bias which in the end will lead to the same type of greed.

I completely agree that the Government should not be doing anything with GM - but for a different reason.

They should be standing back and letting GM collapse and making a plan for how to proceed with the economy when the dust settles.

But people that criticize the Government for stepping should just acknowledge two points.

First, it's not like Obama stepped in to a viable company and nationalized it on a whim. It was already pretty much dead long before he was even elected. If he had not stepped in, if not by now then certainly in the next few months, it would have been completely dead and all those assembly line workers, all the engineers, all the lawyers, all the accountants, all the middle managment, all the sales people at exclusive GM dealers, all the executives would be without jobs.

It wasn't a choice between Capitalism and Socialism for GM, it was a choice between Socialism and oblivion.

Second, stepping in and taking over GM is no more damaging to the concept of free enterprise (or Capitalism or whatever you want to call it) than all of the no-bid contracts that the previous adminstration threw to Dick Cheney's former company for construction projects in Iraq. It undermines market forces that are critical to the stability of a free market system.

Not trying to put words in anyone on this forum's mouth, but I have heard a lot of people in the media lately throwing horrible accusations at our President when the previous President did things as deserving of dirision without receiving so much as a peep.

 

[Willy]

Just because the US Government now has 60% of GM, it doesn't mean GM will become "profitable" again. Look at the national debt and tell me the US Government is capable of being "profitable". It's a verifiable conundrum.

Somehow I just don't believe that the new GM (Government Motors) is going to do well.

 

[GT182]

JS, I don't believe the government is really taking over. GM will still run it's self. So over seeing might be a better term, just to keep an eye on things.

 

[Lionheart]

JS, I don't believe the government is really taking over. GM will still run it's self. So over seeing might be a better term, just to keep an eye on things.

I agree..



Bill

 

[Cerberus]

Well I personally am a small government person, so don't think Obama is the only one I have criticized over the years lol, and as for Jspal not liking the criticism Obama is getting well I honestly think the media unfairly bashed Bush and Palin on many issues and to a greater degree. Bush was part of the problem and Obama is making things worse as well, and so did most of the guys we have had in office for a long time. I agree completely with you that this same type of bias existed with Cheney's former company, although I will admit they probably were one of the only companies with the infrastructure to pull it off. As government power and debt has grown our freedoms and standard of living have decreased. In the end the Democrats and Republicans are part of the same agenda, they just offer a Copout for the less educated to redirect their dissatisfaction towards every 4 years.

As for choosing between Socialism and oblivion. Well that is an easy one, Americans have been spoiled for too long, we forget that the tree needs to be pruned to produce the best fruit, sure it hurts but in the end the net suffering is less. It is a normal part of the economic cycle to have a down time, but since our current generation spoiled themselves by surviving off of loan and credit card dept they weren’t very prepared for the natural cycle to take effect. Unsuccessful companies fail all the time, their talented designers start up their own companies or they join smaller developing companies adding new ideas and insight. In the end we are overwhelmed with new ideas and then we must weed out those that are not reasonable. This adaptive Darwinism works for nature and has been the principle of our economy for a long time. When you remove the natural predator of the business world then positive development becomes stagnant, and what was once the prey now becomes a parasite to its environment.

On a personal note I am disgusted that so many in our country are adopting Socialist concepts. I will live in a hole in a ground and throw rocks at squirrels before I adopt the principles our fellow Americans have shed their blood fighting against for over 200 years. They alone deserve the right to decide which direction our country heads, and I can’t believe a foreign mentality is being allowed to dishonor them so.

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

GM, Chrysler, and Ford were not forced to adapt. They procrastinated and when gasoline went to $4/gallon, they didn't know how to make a fuel efficient car, the market for their only really profitable product evaporated in less than 6 months, and they were left with no truly viable product.

The flaw with the free-market part of Capitalism is that is has horrible foresight. People rarely adopt new products until there is a real benefit - especially when that product is as expensive as a car. As a result there is no motivation for companies to develop new technology until there is already demand for it.

Regulation is a tool the the people use (through Government) when market forces fail to encourage companies to act in a responsible manner.

GM never had market forces to encourage them to make world-class efficient cars and they fought the Government's attempts to create that impetus through regulation.

And are now paying the price as is Chrysler and to a lesser extent Ford.

All the above is absolutely right on. A company must sacrifice some short term profit for long term viability - you can't have it both ways by attempting to manipulate government. That only works for so long. Sad as it is for American workers I'm really happy to see these corporations getting their comeuppance. Out of all of this do you think a single corporation will learn that the future matters? Now how can we get the message through to government to get outta bed with big business and do their job creating a business environment and not corruptly kowtowing to big business because to my children and grandchildren the future does matter.

It was Bush who started throwing money at banks after Lehman Brothers failed finally fully understanding that the sheer size of some of these corporations makes it so that they can't be allowed to fail as the pain would be too great for the nation to endure. Obama gets this also. Sadly I also think this is true. The fallout would be too great and go on for too long. Some might call it healthy pruning but just ask those who would suffer through no fault of their own. The social costs would be simply too great.

The ones that I like are those who run small businesses who would never get a bailout. They like to stand on principle that if they can fail then big guys should fail as well otherwise it ain't fair. Your right it ain't fair... so pragmatism beats principle everytime. I can't help but wonder what their tune would be if the shoe were on the other foot. Anyway the way to make it fair in my opinion is to make everybody small and simply not allow corporations above a certain size. Would there be duplication and all that other cost inefficiency stuff? Yes but everybody would have a job and a future - at least till we find out we don't have enough resources on earth to support all the people - but thats a different discussion. The whole concept of finding efficiencies that eliminate labour while at the same time growing the population on planet earth leads - IMO - to a very very dead end where violence rules. Years ago making corporations small was called trust busting - where are those guys when we need them now? Of course now it would have to be global trustbusting or it won't work. In my opinion any corporation/company big enough that a customer can't get his hands on the throat of the CEO is too big - there is simply too much lack of ethics, honor and accountability - see any CEOs or Bank Presidents goin to jail? Think we will?

My question is will we - as a people on earth and particularly in the US this time actually learn anything from this whole debacle or will it be a we got through the downturn of 08/09 but now lets get back to selfinterest greed above all based business as usual.

-Ed-

PS As for GM being - in part - government owned I don't like it but I see no other choice at the moment. I would expect government to divest itself of any ownership as fast as it reasonably can. If not and it becomes a "revenue" source for government well we've a new problem to deal with. This applies to both the US and Canadian government both of whom own part of GM. This will be something to watch.

PSS JSpal Methinks you could be my brother by my other mother as you tend to say very well almost exactly what I'm thinking.

 

[JSpal]

On a personal note I am disgusted that so many in our country are adopting Socialist concepts. I will live in a hole in a ground and throw rocks at squirrels before I adopt the principles our fellow Americans have shed their blood fighting against for over 200 years. They alone deserve the right to decide which direction our country heads, and I can’t believe a foreign mentality is being allowed to dishonor them so.

I find it disgusting that someone would ascribe certain political values to veterans with such a broad brush.

My grandfather fought in the Pacific Theater in WW2, but before he died he supported the idea of universal health care. Does that make him less valid of a hero? He didn't join the Army to protect big business. He joined the Army to defend Democracy - the right of the people to decide.

Without giving the cookie cutter answer of "it will be broke before I get old enough to collect" - if you oppose socialist ideals, will you refuse Social Security? If you found yourself gravely ill and uninsured tomorrow would you refuse disability payments or Medicare?

The form of Capitalism we have in this country, with huge corporations as an integral part of every component of our lives, the founding fathers could never have imagined. Yet some people act like they created this country with that type of political and economic system in mind.

In their days corporations were rarely formed, and when they were, they had to have a charter with a certain goal and a time frame (like building a road, bridge, school etc.) and when that goal was achieved they were disbanded. They had no concept of a corporation whose charter was "to make a profit regardless of the cost to society, for as long as we can." This form of business is a creation of the 19th and 20th Century.

So to imply that the founding fathers risked their lives to create a system by which the likes of General Motors has the freedom to act anyway they want, protected by the Constitution from Government intervention is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of historical context.

Capitalism and Democracy are not synonymous. The Constitution of the United States does not mention Capitalism. What it does is set up a system of Democracy where the voters determine the course of the nation.

Just as people on the left were expected to support the previous President in the Iraq War while he was the democratically elected leader, so today should people on the right be expected to support the current President while he does the business the people elected him to do.

It doesn't mean you have to like it.

It just means that you don't question that he is doing what the people that elected him feel like is in the best interest of the country in the current situation. The President still enjoys overwhelming support from the American people, by definition what he does with that support cannot be "un-American" as long as he is acting inside the realm of law and the Constitution.

To say that what he does is un-American is to reject that the process that put him in power is American. It is to reject Democracy.

Anyway, what he has done in not really Socialism. If the bank bailout was real socialism, when the banks were given the money, all of the people running them would have been fired and replaced by government officials. If you wanted an account or a loan from those banks now, you'd go to a Government office. That is not the case.

If whatever he has done with GM were Socialism, he'd be setting up State run car dealerships.

What he is talking about doing with Health Care isn't even real Socialism. He has stated repeatedly that single payer is off the table.

What the President is doing is more like Corporatism. It's Corporate Welfare. The welfare queen that drives a Cadillac that Ronald Reagan spoke of is AIG and GM today. They were handed billions of dollars to keep them in existence, yet still fly their officers around in corporate jets.

It is a handout to be sure, but don't insult Socialism by calling it that.

 

[JSpal]

Hey All,

And are now paying the price as is Chrysler and to a lesser extent Ford.

All the above is absolutely right on. A company must sacrifice some short term profit for long term viability - you can't have it both ways by attempting to manipulate government. That only works for so long. Sad as it is for American workers I'm really happy to see these corporations getting their comeuppance. Out of all of this do you think a single corporation will learn that the future matters? Now how can we get the message through to government to get outta bed with big business and do their job creating a business environment and not corruptly kowtowing to big business because to my children and grandchildren the future does matter.

It was Bush who started throwing money at banks after Lehman Brothers failed finally fully understanding that the sheer size of some of these corporations makes it so that they can't be allowed to fail as the pain would be too great for the nation to endure. Obama gets this also. Sadly I also think this is true. The fallout would be too great and go on for too long. Some might call it healthy pruning but just ask those who would suffer through no fault of their own. The social costs would be simply too great.

The ones that I like are those who run small businesses who would never get a bailout. They like to stand on principle that if they can fail then big guys should fail as well otherwise it ain't fair. Your right it ain't fair... so pragmatism beats principle everytime. I can't help but wonder what their tune would be if the shoe were on the other foot. Anyway the way to make it fair in my opinion is to make everybody small and simply not allow corporations above a certain size. Would there be duplication and all that other cost inefficiency stuff? Yes but everybody would have a job and a future - at least till we find out we don't have enough resources on earth to support all the people - but thats a different discussion. The whole concept of finding efficiencies that eliminate labour while at the same time growing the population on planet earth leads - IMO - to a very very dead end where violence rules. Years ago making corporations small was called trust busting - where are those guys when we need them now? Of course now it would have to be global trustbusting or it won't work. In my opinion any corporation/company big enough that a customer can't get his hands on the throat of the CEO is too big - there is simply too much lack of ethics, honor and accountability - see any CEOs or Bank Presidents goin to jail? Think we will?

My question is will we - as a people on earth and particularly in the US this time actually learn anything from this whole debacle or will it be a we got through the downturn of 08/09 but now lets get back to selfinterest greed above all based business as usual.

-Ed-

:ernae:

I wrote an editorial for another Website discussing why the system we have now in the US is not really Capitalism.

Companies like AIG do not operate in a Capitalist system because they are not subject to market forces. In addition to being so big we cannot allow them to fail or the consequences for the Society would be to great, at the same time, the people have no power to take enough business away from them (vote with their dollars) to influence their behavior.

In order to take business away from AIG to punish them for bad business practices, you would need to know that the bank you have your savings at, and the bank you have your mortgage at, don't do business with AIG.

Such things are impossible for the consumer to know.

So the impetus for AIG to act responsibly must come from the banks that do business with AGI themselves. But those banks have a charter that says that their first responsibility is to make money for their shareholders. So they can't take their insurance business elsewhere if AIG offers a better deal on a certain financial insurance product.

Thus there are no market forces and without market forces, there is no Capitalism.

I don't know what it is, but it's not Capitalism.

 

[Willy]

We were doing pretty good on this until politics were brought into it. Any more and I'll close the thread.

 

[CG_1976]

Agreed Willy, Political debates and discussion belong over at Quartermoon Saloon. I find there a much better enviroment to debate and discuss politics.

 

[Cerberus]

Darn I was excited we were seeing some action around here. Heck I even risked alienating a few customers. I'll move it over into my own thread if that isn't an issue.

 

[Willy]

Jesse, check your PMs.

 

[Cerberus]

Just registered. Thanks

 

[codeseven]

I don't have much sympathy for American auto companies. They made their bed, now they have to lay in it.

A company, any company, can only make inferior products for so long before it bites them in the ***. I blame much of the American auto makers problems on the car companies upper management, or lack thereof. Continueing to spew out ugly, gas guzzling outdated vehicles in economic times when foriegn auto makers are outselling you is just plain suicidal.

But at least some of the blame has to go on the American workers themselves (ofcoarse not all, I guess most are hard working but enough to impact the future of their employer).

Years ago, I wish I had a link for you guys, but years ago I saw a segment on 60 Minutes or 20/20 or one of those type of shows that was about Toyota and American workers. From what I can remember in order for Toyota to sell more cars in America our government forced them to build assembly plants here in the US and hire American workers to run them, sounds fair enough. Toyota parts from Japan and American workers assembling them. Toyota vehicles already had an excellent reputation for quality and reliability.

However, within two years of these new US assembly plants being operated Toyota vehicles saw a sharp decline in thier once rock solid quality and reliability ratings. How could this be? Same Japanese parts and almost identical assembly plants to those in Japan. What it came down to were the American workers themselves. The vehicles were being assembled haphazardly. Loose or missing screws/bolts, misaligned doors hinges, missing bulbs, ect, ect all adding up to careless shoddy workmanship. Apparently the work ethic of Japanese workers was/is much different than American workers. Toyota had to fight with American auto unions to replace assembly plant managers and the workers with documented poor performance in order to get their product back on par. After finally being able to do so Toyota vehicles from these plants were up to par and quality/ reliability ratings returned to what they once were.

I know it was 60 Minutes that had the story on the GM plant (or Chrysler) in a small town in the midwest that was shutting down and being replaced with a Honda plant. Workers were in up in arms about having to work for a Japanese auto maker. They interviewed these workers a year later and were surprised to find how pleased they were with the working envirement, pay and purhaps most surprising of all, now being held accountable for the quality of their work. Pride of workmanship had returned and the end product rolling out of the plant showed it.

Anybody can look in any of Consumer reports Annual Auto Buyers Guides, flip to the back and see youself how year after year American cars rate very poorly yet foriegn cars, especially Japanese cars rate very high. Cheap plastic parts where sturdy metal should be, shoddy workmanship, poor work ethic ie 'ah, thats good enough, who cares' and a reluctance to hold anybody accountable for their actions (oh no, you dont want to do that, maybe their not doing their job because their dog got ran over when they were three years old or something, lets just look the other way) and the result is your end product is going to be crap.

My Dad is a WW2 vet. He seen his buddies get killed while fighting in the South Pacific. He was always the last person that would ever buy anything labled Made in Japan. For years he would only buy American cars, no matter what. After bringing in his Chevy for the 3rd time for transmission problems he was done. He reluctantly bought a Toyota Tacoma and has not had a problem since.

You cant expect people to keep giving you business if your product is consistantly inferior to what the other guy offers.

Now American auto makers say 'we get it now', 'we know what American consumers want and 'now' were going to start making great cars'.

Too little, too late.

 

[gera]

JS, I don't believe the government is really taking over. GM will still run it's self. So over seeing might be a better term, just to keep an eye on things.

Gary, how can the government " oversee" or "keep and eye" on things when it cannot do it to itself???....goverment intervention, specially with people with very little management experience as head of it, is a medicine that will get the sick, sicker!!!!!..goverments today all over have proven that they are really bad managers, specially those that like to "fatten up" more and more..........get ready for the Chinese, learn Mandarin!!!!:isadizzy::isadizzy:

 

[gera]

Oh yea......if the Unions keep getting their candy, soon, not even candy will be made in America..The fat Unions and many governments and their laws plus greedy Managers broke GM, Chrysler and more are on line..... (note: Check the labels, many a chewing gum is made in Brazil!!! and China).

 

[Lionheart]

He who manufactures is the giant. They are brining in the money. King of the mountain.

In WWII, when war first broke out, America was known as an industrial giant, manufacturing everything 'in-country' and mostly 'only' exporting. Our cars went everywhere.

Now.... now.. oops..


Who are the big industrial giants now? Mexico, China, Taiwan (if thats seperate), India...

India now own Land Rover and several other vehicle plants/names/marques. China is quickly coming up with new marques and plants for other manufacturers (such as gm, Ford, etc).

I wonder if Mercedes and BMW are still mostly in Germany (manufacturing plants)? I know BMW used to make cars in Brazil if I remember correctly. I think VW did also.

Note; One of the best countries for building cars is Germany. Though they have a higher 'cost of living' (thus higher pay wages), their quality is unbeatable, outdoing the Japanese manufacturers. The numbers of mistakes on a Japanese assembly line are higher then the Germans, and thus the Germans win in the end via total numbers produced, (and higher or highest quality).



Billl.