# What will become of GM?



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

What is wrong with our country today is exemplified in the problems with GM. Obama says that GM needs to make more fuel efficient cars, like Toyota and Honda, and that is why the company is failing. This is why Obama is not a president but more like a dictator; he really thinks he knows what is best for everyone. 

I own two big SUVs. They are our daily drivers. I pay for the gasoline these autos consume. Now the president says that Americans want more fuel efficient cars produced in America. He is absoultely wrong. People want what their hearts want. Many are willing to go broke over it, or try to get someone else to pay for their desires. Not me.

I get no big tax breaks nor do I receive a government subsidy. I pay my mortgage on time. I have great credit. I pay income taxes, too. I receive nothing from the federal government except a strong national defense (at least I did until waterboarding was deemed illegal). We deserve choices in the market place, not imited choices imposed by big government. 

Ever driven a Cobalt LS? Sure it is fuel efficient. Yes it drives fine for a subcompact car, but I don't want one. Last week Hertz tried to put me in a Prius. I walked back to the service counter and got upgraded to a Sable. There was no way I was going to cover 350 miles of interstate in a schittbox hybrid. 0 - 60 in that thing takes 12 seconds, which would make merging a frightening experience. Who needs more of that? When I press on the go pedal I want to be gone!

Dear Mr. President, unions killed the big three. Union pensions crushed cash-flow at GM. GM was the world leader in the number of cars sold each year until last year. That fact alone makes the president wrong; people buy GM cars in almost the same number as those who buy Toyotas. GMs problem is that they need cash, and with credit markets so limited, marginal consumers can't buy cars. Only Uncle Sugar has the money GM needs and GM has a government installed CEO who is an accountant, not a car guy. 

Liberals want an oligarchy, where a few people hold sway over everyone, and that is why Liberals are not about liberty. We are a representative republic with only the rule of law to protect us. Don't let Liberals limit your choices for goods on the free commercial market Vote to keep the government out of running businesses. We are not as free as we were last December.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You really want to use one square, you just don't realize it yet. But the government knows what you want, don't worry.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

I can't even spare a square.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

GM shall be around for a long time, just not as big as it is now. I believe it was once the biggest or one of the biggest companies in the world.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 24, 2008)

GM deserves a large degree of blame for its own problems. It's known about the drain on legacy benefits on its books for decades now, yet it did nothing to solve the problem. When unions demanded greater benefits, GM gave in. Sure, the union might go on strike - but GM management always had the option of firing every union worker and rehiring. They only needed to do it once before the threat of another strike by new hires became very remote indeed.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

GM and Chrysler will be like Amtrak. That is the business model. Amtrak is a private corporation. Most people don't know that. The government, however, owns 95% of the shares. That, plus the fact that the government pours money in to compensate for their own poor management protects the corporation from any consequences of failure. 

Also, by consolidating all passenger rail under a single government entity, Amtrak was assured that it would have no competition. Even if another entity attempted to provide passenger rail service, how could it compete against Amtrak whose owners are able to print money? That is what Ford will be facing. The government's first mission once it has consolidated it's power over GM will be to eliminate Ford and assure a government monopoly over US auto manufacturing. That should be easy to do since I assume that all government fleet purchases will be GM now, and the fact that GM will be protected from failure and get a lot of money that Ford won't. Then, brace yourself for shortages, waiting lists to get cars, cars being awarded as political favors, or given or discounted to the "disadvantaged" in exchange for blocks of votes.

"Brother, you asked for it." ~~ Francisco d'Anconia.

ETA: It seems to me that what is happening is that Obama is creating "corporate Zombies." These corporations won't really die, they just get bitten by the government with bailout money and turn into the Living Dead. They aren't what or who they used to be, their soul has been gutted and subordinated to Obama, they can wreck havoc on their competition, yet can not die. The government will keep them alive. As they attack their competition, their competition either will die or accept government money themselves to stay "alive," and turn into zombies themselves.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

azlawstudent said:


> GM deserves a large degree of blame for its own problems. It's known about the drain on legacy benefits on its books for decades now, yet it did nothing to solve the problem. When unions demanded greater benefits, GM gave in. Sure, the union might go on strike - but GM management always had the option of firing every union worker and rehiring. They only needed to do it once before the threat of another strike by new hires became very remote indeed.


Easier said than done. GM, Chrysler, and Ford are beholden to the autoworkers union. Who can expect to be fully supported and not working? That model does not work. It is a ponzi scheme.

In the not too distant future, this is what will happen to Social Security; which is why we should allow people to opt out and take care of their own retirement planning. Sure some will lose, but our government was not created to take of the people in their retirement years.

Entitlement programs, public or private, don't work. We are screwed.


----------



## The Swedish Chef (Feb 16, 2009)

An interesting read this thread. From an overseas viewpoint surely all Obama is simply saying that GM needs to manufacture cars that have a higher demand, for example like the ones that their Japanese competitors produce?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Beau said:


> Entitlement programs, public or private, don't work. We are screwed.


That's a good point. GM was/is so large it almost functions as a small government. For generations it gave its workers cradle of the grave benefits. How many stories do we hear about how some worker is a 3rd generation GM assembly line worker. How as soon as he was out of high school he started working at the factory and knew he had a job for life.

As tragic as some of these job loss stories are, they are unfortunately the necessary conclusion to an unsustainable benefits scheme.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

Beau said:


> Easier said than done. GM, Chrysler, and Ford are beholden to the autoworkers union.


NOT IF THEY FILE FOR CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY!!!!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The Swedish Chef said:


> An interesting read this thread. From an overseas viewpoint surely all Obama is simply saying that GM needs to manufacture cars that have a higher demand, for example like the ones that their Japanese competitors produce?


The problem isn't that they don't make fuel-efficient cars, it's that no one wants to pay the cost of American union labor for economy cars. So they try to compete by cutting corners, and they still have to sell the cars at a loss.

Let them die.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

GM will be renamed "Government Motors" and will turn out three models based on classic designs bought from esteemed European car makers: the "Lada," the "Volga," and the "Yugo."

Here are a couple of shots of the planned Government Motors Lada 4X4 SUV:



















Chrysler will become an even more exciting car company, being a partnership of FIAT and the workers' union. Their cars will be guaranteed not to break down more than once every two weeks, and they promise to fix them within two weeks of being put in the shop, assuming parts are available and have not been blocked by a labor strike.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The Swedish Chef said:


> An interesting read this thread. From an overseas viewpoint surely all Obama is simply saying that GM needs to manufacture cars that have a higher demand, for example like the ones that their Japanese competitors produce?


A higher demand with whom? GM produces a range of vehicles, of which some are fuel efficient and even "green". The problem is that they are producing too many cars (too many makes and models) and styling. For the longest time the styling of American automobiles plainly stunk! They produced ugly cars and only now are they finally starting to figure it out with sleeker lines and cars that appeal to a younger population.

Its a naive notion that if only the big three started to produce smaller more fuel efficient cars they would be revived. Their problems are structural and it starts with an unsustainable cradle to grave benefits package that has been weighing like an anchor around their necks for years.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Beresford said:


> GM will be renamed "Government Motors" and will turn out three models based on classic designs bought from esteemed European car makers: the "Lada," the "Volga," and the "Yugo."
> 
> Here are a couple of shots of the planned Government Motors Lada 4X4 SUV:
> 
> ...


It is green. That's a plus.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

The Swedish Chef said:


> An interesting read this thread. From an overseas viewpoint surely all Obama is simply saying that GM needs to manufacture cars that have a higher demand, for example like the ones that their Japanese competitors produce?


You couldn't be more wrong. GM sells more cars globally than any other manufacturer, except last year Toyota finally beat them. Here is how the business breaks out: https://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

The Japanese and US makers are running neck and neck.

GM owns your Saab and Ford owns your Volvo. I have owned both and can say they are definately not superior products. Volvo wouldn't have a large SUV type vehicle if it wasn't for Mazda. When our president says that people prefer what the Japanese automakers have to offer over the domestics it is conjecture, not fact.

In the US, which is currently the world's largest market, most consumers need a loan to purchase a car. Credit is not widely available. Lease programs no longer make it possible for the consumer to drive a car beyond their means.

Most car buyers are loyalists. Most car buyers also are not car enthusiasts, who are more likely to own cars from various manufacturers. If one was raised driving a Toyota, then one is more likely to buy a Toyota. When I was young we had Chevys and Oldsmobiles. i was 16 in 1976 and my first car was a 1972 Olds 98 with a 455 cu inch engine (7.45 Liters). It was a huge boat. In my late 20's and 30's I drove a series of European cars. They were fun to drive, but extremely unreliable.

I travel a lot for work. I am in rental cars every week. The new Taurus/Sable is a fine car. The Cobalt -excellent economy car. The Camry was no different or more special than any American counterpart. The Malibu or Saturn Aura was better, more taught and responsive. The Suburu Outback was a horrible, bouncy unstable claptrap. The Volvo S80 wagon had terrible ergonomics and I couldn't wait to turn it in.

My car of choice today is a Suburban LTZ - luxury, power, and carrying capacity all combined. If I could have any other car it would be a 911 or Boxter S.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

pt4u67 - you've got it right! Cradle to grave benefits have killed more than just the domestic auto manufacturers. The Japanese manufacturers set up shop in the south, which regionally opposes unions. Now Mercedes and Kia are doing the same. VW will soon have a plant outside of Chattanooga. The South is famous for its "right to work" stance. The foreign manufacturers were smart to bring their work here. Too bad there is not a BMW factory outlet in Spartanburg, SC!


----------



## The Swedish Chef (Feb 16, 2009)

Arr lost a huge post in reply, damn mobile broadband. posting whilst on a train.

Anyway to summarise. 

Thanks for the replies.

Clearly there is something very amiss with the internal structure of GM to be haemorrhaging that much money on sales figures like that.

SAAB only produces 2 models in 3 variants, how they can expect to compete in the marketplace is beyond me. They'll be sold to a Chinese consortium or go bust, very soon I should imagine. The question is why did GM buy them in the first place as they have not made a profit for decades and most of their technical knowledge was shared with another GM owned brand in Opel?

Volvo made nice profits during the good times and now like everyone else is feeling the pinch. Ford have rightly sucked all the knowledge from its purchase and this is easily seen in it's current range of models. Whether they sell Volvo on or not depends on whether they get a good price for it. Ford as I understand it have not utilised the US government money made available to it, which to their full credit gives them complete freedom from the whims of the US administration, unlike GM, which is where this thread started.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 24, 2008)

Beau said:


> Easier said than done. GM, Chrysler, and Ford are beholden to the autoworkers union. Who can expect to be fully supported and not working? That model does not work. It is a ponzi scheme.
> 
> In the not too distant future, this is what will happen to Social Security; which is why we should allow people to opt out and take care of their own retirement planning. Sure some will lose, but our government was not created to take of the people in their retirement years.
> 
> Entitlement programs, public or private, don't work. We are screwed.


I never said it would be easy, merely that it was possible. GM, et al are only beholden to the unions because they allowed themselves to become so. Had they adhered to a hard-line policy ab initio, there would be a very different situation today.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Considering the unions' political power, I doubt the automakers could really deal with them how they should. It wouldn't surprise me if it would literally be against the law for GM & company to tell the unions to go to hell.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

azlawstudent said:


> Had they adhered to a hard-line policy *ab initio*


What are you, like a law student?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*GM has publicized it's problems for years*

All you have to do is read their annual financial filings. I realize that it is a boring read, so I will summarize. 1) they have sold as many, or even more, vehicles than any other company in the world for years and years. 2) Every time they sell a car, they lose money, and this has been going on for years and years and years.

It is a little more difficult to figure out what is going on at Chrysler, because it has been a private company for a few years now. How does it make you feel, knowing that your tax dollars are going to prop up a company that doesn't make its financial information public to the people who are providing the welfare payments?


----------



## GreenPlastic (Jan 27, 2009)

Labor unions destroyed the American auto industry. It's not a demand story but a cost story. GM sells plenty of cars each year [edit: as agnash has pointed out]. Furthermore, hybrids (including the much-vaunted Prius) account for a very miniscule fraction of Toyota's overall sales. So the blanket statement that GM needs to be "more like Toyota" and manufacture more hybrids is only a half truth at best.

Why is Toyota more competitive than GM? True, Toyota manufactures a range of automobiles that outsells GM's range for any number of reasons. But the more important factor is on the cost side. Toyota has automated as many of its manufacturing processes as possible, to fantastic improvements in consistency, while also cutting costs. Furthermore, Toyota manufactures cars on every continent in the world and sells those cars there. Many of the Toyotas you buy in the United States were built in the United States. Sure, there are still shipments by boat from Japan to the U.S. each year -- but those are the exceptions to the overall rule.

Essentially, Toyota has streamlined its production while American automakers have not. This is partially the result of decades of complacency on the American manufacturers' end, but it's mainly the fact that American manufacturers have one hand tied behind their backs by the all-powerful labor unions. Unions pretty much dictate exactly how American companies must structure themselves. They were useful back when robber baron capitalism was the rule of the day, circa the mid to late 19th century. But today they've grown too powerful, too entitled, and too demanding for their own good.

Furthermore, all this nonsense about "Government Motors" and "dictator" Obama is absurd. If you want to direct your ire at a responsible party for GM's decline, point it at the UAW. They have stifled innovation on the manufacturing and operations side of the business, while Japanese automakers have innovated consistently on that side of the business. Our companies were outmaneuvered because they were not allowed to maneuver, so to speak.


----------



## Nerev (Apr 25, 2009)

I blame management. They get paid millions of dollars because they have experience and better judgement in their field than the average Joe. They should have made good forecast, predictions, and analyzed trends better. They should have seen the writing on the wall. But they didn't, and that's why we as tax payers lose.

GM did have the most marketshare for car sales, and for many years. Japanese automakers though have slowed brought that marketshare down, and Toyota finally surpassed GM. This trend will probably continue and GM will continue to lose marketshare. It's tough buying a car if you think the company is going bankrupt; where will I get my parts 5 years down the road if they do? While the original poster makes his ponit, that he wants his car this way specificly, this isn't always the concerns of most people. We here at AAAC own thousand dollar suits, fine silk ties, and hundred dollar shoes; we are the minority in this situation. Most people can't afford what we can, and most people could not afford $4 for gasoline last year either. That was one of the main reasons small and light automobiles became so popular, and that is one of the reasons why GM did so poorly. This isn't a new phenomeon, this was happening for years. They thought Honda was insane for selling fuel efficent cars when gas was $1.50, but who's getting the last laugh now?

I think the sadest part is that the workers, those not of management, got the worst end of all of this. But part of this is the Unions fault. 50 years ago when working conditions, pay, and health care were much worse, it made sense for people to rally together, form Unions and demand better treatment. Now though, many companies without Unions already offer these, and the government has already passed many laws that help the worker. Unions over time have gotten greedy, and there's an old saying in the financial world reguarding this, "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered." The saddest aspect of all is the Saturn company, a company that was different, where workers were stakeholders in the company.

The fate of GM? Bankruptcy. While the company has worked to lower overhead, shed thousands of jobs, closed numerous plants, and concessions from the Union, it just isn't enough. The company's up to its eyeballs in debt, and just like Chrysler, I still don't think bondholders will agree. And why would they? GM chopped up and liquidated would be less of a haircut than what Chrysler was offered. After losing billions of dollars, why would someone lose more?

The good thing, if you consider it good, at least for us is that the world has tanked with us. Economist that thought the world would decouple from us were pretty much wrong. We started this mess yet other countries are worse than us.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

GreenPlastic said:


> Furthermore, all this nonsense about "Government Motors" and "dictator" Obama is absurd. If you want to direct your ire at a responsible party for GM's decline, point it at the UAW. They have stifled innovation on the manufacturing and operations side of the business, while Japanese automakers have innovated consistently on that side of the business. Our companies were outmaneuvered because they were not allowed to maneuver, so to speak.


Very well said, but I take exception to your Obama statement. The guy really wants to be a dictator. He thinks he (the knowledge he gets from his advisors) knows what is best for everyone; it is transparent in the phrases he uses. I admit I think he is a terrible president and an absolute know nothing. He has a fantastic political machine.

Our government has no business trying to run or save any private company. Sure Chrysler got a federal government loan in 1979, but the government was not dictating how the company should be run or what any executive should be paid. The administration's constant medling is nothing more than an attempt to incite class warfare, and create a larger class of constituents beholden to the federal government. Corporate CEOs in need of cash will take any deal to try and save their own asses.


----------



## Nerev (Apr 25, 2009)

Beau said:


> Our government has no business trying to run or save any private company. Sure Chrysler got a federal government loan in 1979, but the government was not dictating how the company should be run or what any executive should be paid. The administration's constant medling is nothing more than an attempt to incite class warfare, and create a larger class of constituents beholden to the federal government. Corporate CEOs in need of cash will take any deal to try and save their own asses.


I don't think it is so black and white. Sometimes government needs to intervene, other times they have no choice, and still there are times when they just stay clear. Ingoring the world and our countries economy, I think GM shouldn't have received any helped, and just reorganized in bankruptcy court. Taking our current recession and economic downturn though, and with such a tight credit market, I think the government should have stepped in. I don't think the government wants to run it as in full nationalization, and later down the line when things are settled, and if GM can be sustainable, that's when government should get it's loans back and leave. Since I don't see us being socialist in 5 years, this hopefully will be the path. This of course isn't the same for the banks. Those should have been declared insolvent, went into receivership, and sold back into the private market.


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

*Rush Limbaugh at work.*



Beau said:


> Very well said, but I take exception to your Obama statement. *The guy really wants to be a dictator*. He thinks he (the knowledge he gets from his advisors) knows what is best for everyone; it is transparent in the phrases he uses. *I admit I think he is a terrible president and an absolute know nothing*. He has a fantastic political machine.
> 
> Our government has no business trying to run or save any private company. Sure Chrysler got a federal government loan in 1979, but the government was not dictating how the company should be run or what any executive should be paid. The administration's constant medling is nothing more than an attempt to incite class warfare, and create a larger class of constituents beholden to the federal government. Corporate CEOs in need of cash will take any deal to try and save their own asses.


It sounds clearly that you haven't live in a country run by a dictator. There is absolutely no way Obama wants to be a dictator. The salaries to most of these crooks in this country are unjustifiable, making $ 17Mil a year while your company is in the toilet?If Tax payer money is used to bail them out they should limit these morons salaries. If the economy was doing well/stable probably govt would have let GM/Chrysler die but with the current situation you'll be adding a huge strain on the economy that might lead into depression. All those people(Millions) whose employment depends on car manufacturing/sales would turn into unemployment benefits, where would that money come from?


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I found a handling test of the new GM Yugo on YouTube:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I don't know what Obama wants, but I find it hilarious when his administration denies they want to run the banks. If you could sign a piece of paper and run anything in the world you wanted; wouldn't it be the 19 largest financial institutions in the world? Of course he wants to run the banks. Saying he doesn't want to run the banks makes him sound like an insane person IMHO. I mean heck, if he doesn't want to run them; I'll run them ... I guarantee you Wilbur Ross, Warren Buffet, et al want to run them. The same applies to GM and Ford, I think. It's just way too implausible. Just tell the truth ... honestly it's tempting to want to run the banks forever, but it would be bad for America. Don't sit up there and act like all that power and money doesn't appeal to you at all. "they don't want to run the banks! they don't want to run the banks!" It's like a chic saying she doesn't want 44 DDs. Yeah OK sweatheart!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I don't know what Obama wants, but I find it hilarious when his administration denies they want to run the banks. If you could sign a piece of paper and run anything in the world you wanted; wouldn't it be the 19 largest financial institutions in the world? Of course he wants to run the banks. Saying he doesn't want to run the banks makes him sound like an insane person IMHO. I mean heck, if he doesn't want to run them; I'll run them ... I guarantee you Wilbur Ross, Warren Buffet, et al want to run them.


I don't want to run them.

I just want to sit in the Lotus position breathing in incense and chanting platitutes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I don't want to run them.
> 
> I just want to sit in the Lotus position breathing in incense and chanting platitutes.


LMAO ok I will qualify my statement; everyone except Forsberg and maybe Richard Gere and Sean Penn. Better? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Nerev (Apr 25, 2009)

ksinc said:


> I don't know what Obama wants, but I find it hilarious when his administration denies they want to run the banks. If you could sign a piece of paper and run anything in the world you wanted; wouldn't it be the 19 largest financial institutions in the world? Of course he wants to run the banks. Saying he doesn't want to run the banks makes him sound like an insane person IMHO. I mean heck, if he doesn't want to run them; I'll run them ... I guarantee you Wilbur Ross, Warren Buffet, et al want to run them. The same applies to GM and Ford, I think. It's just way too implausible. Just tell the truth ... honestly it's tempting to want to run the banks forever, but it would be bad for America. Don't sit up there and act like all that power and money doesn't appeal to you at all. "they don't want to run the banks! they don't want to run the banks!" It's like a chic saying she doesn't want 44 DDs. Yeah OK sweatheart!


If he wanted to nationalize them, he could have done it dozens of times already. What do you think happens when a bank is declared insolvent? The FDIC, a government branch, comes in and takes it over. From there, you either run the bank (nationalization), or you clean it up and sell it back into the private market. IndyMac was one of the first banks (if not the first) to be declared insolvent and it's being planned or already back in the private market. Also, banks like Bank of America and Citibank aren't being taken over in this scheme while many people are arguing to do this. The government is giving "loans" and buying shares of the company, and has said again and again it doesn't want to nationalize banks. While some can argue that this is a partial nationization, this is no where near "running the banks."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Nerev said:


> If he wanted to nationalize them, he could have done it dozens of times already. What do you think happens when a bank is declared insolvent? The FDIC, a government branch, comes in and takes it over. From there, you either run the bank (nationalization), or you clean it up and sell it back into the private market. IndyMac was one of the first banks (if not the first) to be declared insolvent and it's being planned or already back in the private market. Also, banks like Bank of America and Citibank aren't being taken over in this scheme while many people are arguing to do this. The government is giving "loans" and buying shares of the company, and has said again and again it doesn't want to nationalize banks. While some can argue that this is a partial nationization, this is no where near "running the banks."


Please. That's absolutely trivial. They are running the banks. The banks can't even give back the TARP money without getting permission first. The banks get dragged up on the Hill and berated by people that couldn't make $75,000/year in the private sector about who to let open accounts(illegals), who to lend to, how much to charge, and even what ATM fees should be. To say the banks aren't and haven't been nationalized for years is just parsing ... they *run* them; the rest is just trivial.

Re: BoA see Ken Lewis' predicament for insight into who is running BoA.

Of course they want and need them full of OPM, but they want to run them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Nerev said:


> I don't think it is so black and white. Sometimes government needs to intervene, other times they have no choice, and still there are times when they just stay clear. Ingoring the world and our countries economy, I think GM shouldn't have received any helped, and just reorganized in bankruptcy court. Taking our current recession and economic downturn though, and with such a tight credit market, I think the government should have stepped in. I don't think the government wants to run it as in full nationalization, and later down the line when things are settled, and if GM can be sustainable, that's when government should get it's loans back and leave. Since I don't see us being socialist in 5 years, this hopefully will be the path. This of course isn't the same for the banks. Those should have been declared insolvent, went into receivership, and sold back into the private market.


Maybe you are confusing "owning" with "running."


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

ksinc said:


> LMAO ok I will qualify my statement; everyone except Forsberg and maybe Richard Gere and Sean Penn. Better? :icon_smile_wink:


OMMM OMMMM OMMM OMMMM


----------



## Nerev (Apr 25, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Please. That's absolutely trivial. They are running the banks. The banks can't even give back the TARP money without getting permission first. The banks get dragged up on the Hill and berated by people that couldn't make $75,000/year in the private sector about who to let open accounts(illegals), who to lend to, how much to charge, and even what ATM fees should be. To say the banks aren't and haven't been nationalized for years is just parsing ... they *run* them; the rest is just trivial.
> 
> Re: BoA see Ken Lewis' predicament for insight into who is running BoA.


You are talking about two completely different things. Banks follow laws, regulations, and monetary policies set by the government. This doesn't fit "running the banks at all" because it would mean the government is running our lives. Why can't I drive 150 MPH on the freeway, and why can't I take loaded guns with me on a plane? Again, because there are allows prohibing this and in a sense, for the greater good. It's the same as what you listed, so that banks can't charge $50 for an ATM fee just because "they can."

Running a bank means taking care of day to day activities. It means setting goals, making plans, and a thousand other things. It also means for some banks to give loans to people with that don't need to show income or prove they own any assets. Again, two really different things.



ksinc said:


> Maybe you are confusing "owning" with "running."


I own many companies, actuall hundreds of companies in the form of shares. I don't run the companies though, I just have a stake in it. Even if I owned 90% of Bank of America, I can assign sets to the Board of Directors who chooses the executive management and gives direction, it is still the executive management that runs the business if I choose not be an executive. The CEO can make a ton of mistakes, but they are running it. Warren Buffet owns a majority stake in Berkshire Hathaway which owns a variety of companies. Does Warren own the companies? Yes. Does he run the companies? No, but he hires compentant people to.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Nerev said:


> You are talking about two completely different things. Banks follow laws, regulations, and monetary policies set by the government. This doesn't fit "running the banks at all" because it would mean the government is running our lives. Why can't I drive 150 MPH on the freeway, and why can't I take loaded guns with me on a plane? Again, because there are allows prohibing this and in a sense, for the greater good. It's the same as what you listed, so that banks can't charge $50 for an ATM fee just because "they can."
> 
> Running a bank means taking care of day to day activities. It means setting goals, making plans, and a thousand other things. It also means for some banks to give loans to people with that don't need to show income or prove they own any assets. Again, two really different things.
> 
> I own many companies, actuall hundreds of companies in the form of shares. I don't run the companies though, I just have a stake in it. Even if I owned 90% of Bank of America, I can assign sets to the Board of Directors who chooses the executive management and gives direction, it is still the executive management that runs the business. The CEO can make a ton of mistakes, but they are running it. Warren Buffet owns a majority stack in Berkshire Hathaway which owns a variety of companies. Does Warren own the companies? Yes. Does he run the companies? No, but he hires compentant people to.


I think you just debunked your own previous argument (and more than once.)

No; *we* are talking about two different things. I am talking about running them; and you were talking about owning them, but now seem to make the distinction needed.

In the third paragraph, you got it mostly right IMHO (as in I agree) as you now have addressed "running them" except you described how it should be and it is not always so. Clearly the government has run them to a degree in the past and currently, but they want to run them even more. It's fairly obvious if you listen to the types of regulations they want to put in place that they want to take more and more day-to-day decision-making at the banks out of the hands of the management. Sorry; they want to run them. Listen to Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for examples.

Obama's mentors and his overlays are all about co-opting power. They are into control without responsibility and personal investment; not ownership. Read his books and the books of his mentors.


----------



## Nerev (Apr 25, 2009)

I just looked up what Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are saying and they are talking about regulation. They want to set rules and restrictions.

Barney Frank on Freddie and Fannie in NYT article September 2003:
"The proposal reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities&#8230;are not facing any kind of financial crisis&#8230;. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

So, Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, does not think that Congress can do it. 6 years later, he still has not changed that stance. He does want stricter policy after the dereguation from the last decade. But no, as far as I can tell, him and many other powerful people in government, especially our President who has said:
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wa...news-conference-i-dont-want-to-run-banks.html

I will admit though, politicians lie a lot.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

That Obama is operating on a political, not an economic basis in the auto manufacturers is transparent. Look at Chrysler. You've got holders of senior debt being told to accept equity of a smaller size than the union, which has junior standing in the bankruptcy standings. That's asking them to betray their fiduciary duty (much as was rumored to have occurred with Ken Lewis). So of course they stood on their rights and it went to bankruptcy.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

radix023 said:


> That Obama is operating on a political, not an economic basis in the auto manufacturers is transparent. Look at Chrysler. You've got holders of senior debt being told to accept equity of a smaller size than the union, which has junior standing in the bankruptcy standings. That's asking them to betray their fiduciary duty (much as was rumored to have occurred with Ken Lewis). *So of course they stood on their rights and it went to bankruptcy.*


And they were referred to as obstructionist by the most powerful man in the world. 
_
"Are the bondholders-the lenders, the money people-are they willing to make sacrifices as well? We don't know yet."_


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Nerev said:


> I just looked up what Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are saying and they are talking about regulation. They want to set rules and restrictions.
> 
> Barney Frank on Freddie and Fannie in NYT article September 2003:
> "The proposal reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities&#8230;are not facing any kind of financial crisis&#8230;. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
> ...


Although a Fannie and Freddie, no matter it's largely the same problem with them.

Regulation is in many ways removing managerial discretion from the process; ie "running" them. There is owning, there is running, and there is managing. Surely all of these do-nothings realize they are not talented enough to manage a bank day-to-day; nor do they want the responsibility of doing so. Surely they do not have the resources (because they have no economic value) to own the banks themselves. What they want to do is co-opt the banks and "run" them. They want to make decisions about what people with assets and resources do with them and how they use them.

This is how we got into this crisis in the first place; government oversight on who banks lend to and do NOT lend to.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> What they want to do is co-opt the banks and "run" them. They want to make decisions about what people with assets and resources do with them and how they use them.
> 
> This is how we got into this crisis in the first place; government oversight on who banks lend to and do NOT lend to.


Exactly!


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> "Are the bondholders-the lenders, the money people-are they willing to make sacrifices as well? We don't know yet."


Even I'll admit that's scary stuff. A powerful bit of prose. Not bad for a figure whose public speaking is far weaker than advertised. We're just being beaten over the head with "subtle" populism. I particularly like the "the money people" construction. Go ahead and really deconstruct it so Joe 6-Pack knows who is "at fault."

What's particularly funny are the anti-semitic overtones. "The bondholders, the lenders, the money people." :devil: Accidental, of course, but still funny.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

bigchris1313 said:


> What's particularly funny are the anti-semitic overtones. "The bondholders, the lenders, the money people." :devil: Accidental, of course, but still funny.


20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church and one is bound to pick up on some of his ideas. The language is typical of an academic liberal who really has no idea of how the world really works. Some of those "money people" are simply hard working individuals who lent money to a private company and are now being bullied into going against there own interests. I suppose for Obama, it's easy to be cavalier with someone else's money.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

The report from Chrysler's bond holders have pulled the mask off the administration. Obama is totally clueless. He said in his "100 Day Press Conference" that the Dow had gone from 14,000,000 (fourteen million) to 9,000,000 (nine million)! He has absolutely no experience in business or the military. He has no historical context and is historically illiterate. I bet he has never actually generated a profit anywhere, or even fired a gun. He is a momma's boy, running from momma to momma. He is completely unqualified to even have a job much less be POTUS. The people have elected what John Paul Austin called Jimmy Cater in 1974: The Perfect Dupe. America elected a statist "nose under the tent." And future generations will pay in cash and blood.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> The report from Chrysler's bond holders have pulled the mask off the administration. Obama is totally clueless. He said in his "100 Day Press Conference" that the Dow had gone from 14,000,000 (fourteen million) to 9,000,000 (nine million)! He has absolutely no experience in business or the military. He has no historical context and is historically illiterate. I bet he has never actually generated a profit anywhere, or even fired a gun. He is a momma's boy, running from momma to momma. He is completely unqualified to even have a job much less be POTUS. The people have elected what John Paul Austin called Jimmy Cater in 1974: The Perfect Dupe. America elected a statist "nose under the tent." And future generations will pay in cash and blood.


The more I see and hear the man and his minions, the more I am starting to believe this. I have faith that our ever-fickle electorate will wise up within the next four years and realize Obama's hardly the savior they thought he'd be. As his points fall back to realistic levels, look for the White House to haul out the cute kids and beautiful wife more and more to try and divert the people's attention away from the fact he's digging us into a hole that makes GWB's failed presidency look like a comparitive paradise.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I hope not, but fear you are right.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> The more I see and hear the man and his minions, the more I am starting to believe this. I have faith that our ever-fickle electorate will wise up within the next four years and realize Obama's hardly the savior they thought he'd be. As his points fall back to realistic levels, look for the White House to haul out the cute kids and beautiful wife more and more to try and divert the people's attention away from the fact he's digging us into a hole that makes GWB's failed presidency look like a comparitive paradise.


Scary; isn't it?


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

bigchris1313 said:


> What's particularly funny are the anti-semitic overtones. "The bondholders, the lenders, the money people." :devil: Accidental, of course, but still funny.


Until the recent financial situation, the Left called them "Neocons."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Beresford said:


> Until the recent financial situation, the Left called them "Neocons."


Yep; and very few people understand this point.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> The U.S. government is pouring billions into General Motors in hopes of reviving the domestic economy, but when the automaker completes its restructuring plan, many of the company's new jobs will be filled by workers overseas.
> According to an outline the company has been sharing privately with Washington legislators, the number of cars that GM sells in the United States and builds in Mexico, China and South Korea will roughly double.


ic12337:


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Beau said:


> What is wrong with our country today is exemplified in the problems with GM. Obama says that GM needs to make more fuel efficient cars, like Toyota and Honda, and that is why the company is failing. This is why Obama is not a president but more like a dictator; he really thinks he knows what is best for everyone.
> 
> I own two big SUVs. They are our daily drivers. I pay for the gasoline these autos consume. Now the president says that Americans want more fuel efficient cars produced in America. He is absoultely wrong. People want what their hearts want. Many are willing to go broke over it, or try to get someone else to pay for their desires. Not me.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree with you more. The union are the biggest problem but your not going to get a Democratic president to say that.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Management gave out the contracts - - -

I'll admit that I don't think unions do much except enrich the people who get top jobs in the union.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> about co-opting power. They are into control without responsibility and personal investment; not ownership.


This has ruined many people, whether gov., parents, whatever. Without personal investment there really is no responsibility most of the time.

In the past and even now there have been boards and even some gov. programs that set up rules for commerce much like grammar does with words. But power is different. Once in a while power is necessary, but so often power corrupts. It is much easier to deal with a corrupt board than a corrupt gov. It seems to me gov. = power, which in a democracy we can sometimes vote some of it out.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Today conservatives are vindicated because Toyota posted a quarterly loss that is bigger than GM's quaterly loss. The POTUS is once again proven to be talking out of his arse when he cited how Toyota is doing so much better than GM because they offer cars consumers want...but apparently not now.

Credit crunches have killed consumer debt driven industries in the developed world.

If you have good credit, enough cash and a stable job, now is the best time in 50 years to buy a house or a car.

Since the POTUS can't give a reliable example of what a bank should be or an automobile manufacturer should be, then maybe our government shouldn't be nationalizing these industries.

The trick of the left is to vilify those they want to marginalize. Speculators are those who invested their money in the markets, which makes school teachers evil participants in hedgefunds. When are the citizens of the USA going to wake up and see that they have elected a leader who wants to destroy the institutions that made this country great, just so he can become more powerful.

Obama's words from his last press conference, noted in a recent column by George Will, are really shocking:

_"there are a lot of different power centers" in America, so, for example, "I can't just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want." _

Isn't that so telling, that he wishes he could press a button and control anything? He does not want to be president, he wants to be dictator! Hail Caesar!


----------



## Nerev (Apr 25, 2009)

Wow, some of you are either very paranoid or very pessimistic. This isn't the death of capitalism and the take over of socialism. A pendulum swings back and forth. Greenspan though degredulation was great, and than he said "uh oh" a decade ago. We'll have regulation, no doubt, but the pendulum will swing back. Look at history and be the judge because this has happened countless times, and every time people say "government takeover immenent." Can you list any companies prior to 2005 that the government took over and kept?


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

Nerev said:


> Can you list any companies prior to 2005 that the government took over and kept?


Well, that depends which government you're talking about. I can't think any firms that the US government hasn't given back; however, a fair few shareholders whose firms were located in other (nation) states governed by regimes with "differing" views about private property have been less fortunate.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*He's president and was actually elected. Get over it.*



Beau said:


> When are the citizens of the USA going to wake up and see that they have elected a leader who wants to destroy the institutions that made this country great, just so he can become more powerful.


Huh? The jump from manufacturing to financing is the beginning of the end for an empire. Financial tricksters aren't heroes. As a matter of fact, bankers have been portrayed as villains since the motion picture's earliest days. Hell, Jesus threw a fit at the moneychangers.

Unions are pretty much responsible for creating the middle class, and you seem to hate them.

I certainly hope this President doesn't wreck our economy, allow a terrorist attack, and start a frivolous war. Like the last one did.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> I certainly hope this President doesn't wreck our economy, allow a terrorist attack, and start a frivolous war. Like the last one did.


Bush didn't ruin the economy. He could have done a better job. One thing he did that is not what I liked is take out loans that have to be paid, so raising our taxes. Of course, Obama taking out loans nine times worst is really raising our taxes.

As far as the terrorist attack goes that happened way to soon for Bush to have prevented it, so the blame goes to the a Democrat called Clinton.

Back to the economy; Jimmy Carter was the worst President in my life time. The Democrats in both houses created the Bill that created the recession that Bush Sr. gave up and signed. There never seems to ever be any powerful democrats that understand economics.

Unions are good and bad.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

> Huh? The jump from manufacturing to financing is the beginning of the end for an empire.


This is hyperbole. We are still a manufacturing nation. What are you slaving over? I sell a product that is manufactured.



> Financial tricksters aren't heroes. As a matter of fact, bankers have been portrayed as villains since the motion picture's earliest days.


Art imitates life? Everyone always looks for someone else to blame for their troubles. It is not the bank's fault that people have lost their homes because they can't afford to pay the mortgages they signed. Default credit swaps are another story.



> Hell, Jesus threw a fit at the moneychangers.


Rightly so, a house of worship should not also function as a bank.



> Unions are pretty much responsible for creating the middle class, and you seem to hate them.


Unsubstantiated factoid = fiction. Please cite an example for proof of this statement.



> I certainly hope this President doesn't wreck our economy, allow a terrorist attack, and start a frivolous war. Like the last one did.


How did Bush wreck the economy? The remainder of his presidency he had to work with a democrat controlled congress. The blame belongs more with Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi.

Obama is the one who tripled the deficit, and for what good reason?


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> I certainly hope this President doesn't wreck our economy, allow a terrorist attack, and start a frivolous war. Like the last one did.


Is this a joke?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Huh? The jump from manufacturing to financing is the beginning of the end for an empire. Financial tricksters aren't heroes. As a matter of fact, bankers have been portrayed as villains since the motion picture's earliest days. Hell, Jesus threw a fit at the moneychangers.
> 
> Unions are pretty much responsible for creating the middle class, and you seem to hate them.
> 
> I certainly hope this President doesn't wreck our economy, allow a terrorist attack, and start a frivolous war. Like the last one did.


The same people bemoaned the move from an agrarian-rural society to a manufacturing-urban in the 19th century. Marxism grew out of this notion of a manufacturing society wherein people's labor output exceeds that which is needed for their consumption. Your notion is neither novel and much like your intellectual predecessors over a century ago, just as incorrect.

As for unions, if heavy unionization is good for the economy and the creation of a middle class then France would be a city upon a hill. The fact is that unions are like parasites on society; they exploit capitalists and with the assistance of government draw unrealistic benefits from the entrepreneur. I don't have a problem with unions. My problem is with coercive and meddlesome legislation such as a the NLRA that tilts the scales in favor of the unions. If union labor is superior and a better deal for everyone, including the consumer, then let them compete with non-union labor fairly.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

Here's something else for which I will never understand the philosophical justification:

When firms combine forces to extract higher prices from consumers, we call it morally repugnant "collusion." When employees combine forces to extract higher prices from their employer, we call it morally righteous "unionization." What gives?


----------



## Nerev (Apr 25, 2009)

bigchris1313 said:


> Here's something else for which I will never understand the philosophical justification:
> 
> When firms combine forces to extract higher prices from consumers, we call it morally repugnant "collusion." When employees combine forces to extract higher prices from their employer, we call it morally righteous "unionization." What gives?


Well, collusion is outright illegal and its intentions are almost never good. Unions are a bit more altruistic in the sense that they are there to improve and help its member, unions aren't always out for higher wages. Cesar Chavez rightfully championed for workers' rights and did some great things in his time. A lot of good laws and regulations came out from Unions during that time that improved working conditions and worked against discrimination. But that was then, and almost certainly isn't now.

Back on topic now, GM has less than 3 weeks to get a deal with the bondholders, work out deals with the Unions, close plants, cut or sell brands, and close out a thousand or so dealerships. Bankruptcy for the win!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Nerev said:


> Well, collusion is outright illegal and its intentions are almost never good. Unions are a bit more altruistic in the sense that they are there to improve and help its member, unions aren't always out for higher wages. Cesar Chavez rightfully championed for workers' rights and did some great things in his time. A lot of good laws and regulations came out from Unions during that time that improved working conditions and worked against discrimination. But that was then, and almost certainly isn't now.
> 
> Back on topic now, GM has less than 3 weeks to get a deal with the bondholders, work out deals with the Unions, close plants, cut or sell brands, and close out a thousand or so dealerships. Bankruptcy for the win!


:aportnoy:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Relevant?


----------

