34
   

Let GM go Bankrupt

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 04:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
We can't let capitalism function because too many citizens will get hurt so badly that they will take revenge out on the politicians.


i'm sorry that you see revenge on the politicians being the only fallout from a greater economic collapse.

but for the heck of it, may i ask what kind of work you do?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:06 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

exactly. if all else was going along strong and growing, then the country would most likely be able to moderate, or at least withstand the ensuing domino effect. but with banking, real estate and other industries taking gas simultaneously?


That's where I was going, so we may just disagreeing on likelyhood and degree. Problem is, the people we like to call speculators are going to be more cautious in how they allocate capital, GM could still flop, and the concept of "too big to fail" lives on. I'm inclined to think it was a big mistake, but what might have been is a hard thing to prove.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:07 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Quote:
i'm sorry that you see revenge on the politicians being the only fallout from a greater economic collapse.


I never said that, I gave the reason why capitalism is not allowed to function. Pain is a part of life, and so is death, if you are living focusing on trying prevent pain and death then you are a fool, you will make very bad choices that will hurt you in the long run.

What I do does for work does not alter the truth of what I say.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:08 pm
@roger,
Quote:
GM could still flop, and the concept of "too big to fail" lives on. I'm inclined to think it was a big mistake, but what might have been is a hard thing to prove.


GM has been shrinking for a long time, and there is no reason to expect that it will stop shrinking. At some point we will be ready to let it die....acceptance of death is a process, and not an easy one.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
i'm sorry that you see revenge on the politicians being the only fallout from a greater economic collapse.


I never said that, I gave the reason why capitalism is not allowed to function. Pain is a part of life, and so is death, if you are living focusing on trying prevent pain and death then you are a fool, you will make very bad choices that will hurt you in the long run.

What I do does for work does not alter the truth of what I say.


huh. okay, i guess that's not what you meant here;

hawkeye10 wrote:
We can't let capitalism function because too many citizens will get hurt so badly that they will take revenge out on the politicians.


moving on then.

the reason i was asking about your field of work is simply because it would be interesting to see if you would be sufficiently insulated from damage in the event that a company the size of gm totally fell apart.


DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:17 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

exactly. if all else was going along strong and growing, then the country would most likely be able to moderate, or at least withstand the ensuing domino effect. but with banking, real estate and other industries taking gas simultaneously?


That's where I was going, so we may just disagreeing on likelyhood and degree. Problem is, the people we like to call speculators are going to be more cautious in how they allocate capital, GM could still flop, and the concept of "too big to fail" lives on. I'm inclined to think it was a big mistake, but what might have been is a hard thing to prove.


most likely.

i'm not that big a fan of government involvement, so when i do feel like there is not much in the way of alternatives, it is a bitter pill to take. but i'll take it.

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:25 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Quote:
the reason i was asking about your field of work is simply because it would be interesting to see if you would be sufficiently insulated from damage in the event that a company the size of gm totally fell apart.


I am, but this does not cloud my judgment. I would say the same thing even if the pain could get to me. I happen to think that being 47 y.o. and very insulated from economic conditions is a sign of smart choices.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 07:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
the reason i was asking about your field of work is simply because it would be interesting to see if you would be sufficiently insulated from damage in the event that a company the size of gm totally fell apart.


I am, but this does not cloud my judgment. I would say the same thing even if the pain could get to me. I happen to think that being 47 y.o. and very insulated from economic conditions is a sign of smart choices.


heh.. being any age and very insulated from economic conditions is rare. for your sake, i hope that you remain well insulated.

but since you don't want to discuss the type of work you do, there is no way to take the discussion of ramifications that you may or may not experience due to economic collapse much further.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 06:44 pm
Quote:
Reinventing” GM would require massive and sustained root and branch reform; from the top down and the bottom up. Howes [rightly] seizes on Uncle Sam’s pay cap as the central impediment to GM hiring the kind of management that could even begin to refashion its dysfunctional corporate culture. But the curmudgeon fails to connect the dots. The automaker doesn’t want a shake-up.

More specifically, the idea that GM CEO Fritz Henderson’s hands are tied by the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s pay and bonus restrictions is ridiculous. Henderson is a GM lifer. The former Chief Financial Officer. Fellow GM lifer, fellow former Chief Financial Officer, and Ex-CEO Rick Wagoner’s hand-picked successor. Henderson owes his livelihood to the GM status quo. In other words, if Henderson was dedicated to upending the GM’s ossified apple cart, he’d start by firing himself. Since he hasn’t, we must assume that reshuffling GM’s motley crew of proven losers is a labor of love. An ennobling endeavor.

No joke. By convincing the feds to keep GM out of the garbage disposal of a real C11, Fritz has protected the paychecks, pensions and benefits of hundreds of white collar compatriots. Top executives like Gary Cowger and Troy Clarke must have kissed Fritz’s feet when he knocked on their door with the “bad” news. In a genuine bankruptcy, these proven losers would have been ejected from the Renaissance Center without so much as a fare-thee-well (excluding any monies they may have stashed away during decades of serious rooting). You can hear failed Car Czar Bob Lutz’s gleeful cackles echoing through the automaker’s increasingly empty cubicles, as New GM’s new marketing maven tries (and fails) to assimilate his reversal of fortune.
.
.
.
There is only one way GM can truly “reinvent” itself: surrender to the creative destruction inherent in genuine capitalism. It’s an answer that Howes and GM and many, many others find too horrible to contemplate. But it’s the truth.


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/general-motors-zombie-watch-12-money-talks-but-its-not-saying-anything/
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:27 pm
I'm not up to speed on this, but the Cash for Clunkers program, there has to be alot of "unintended consequences" with this fiasco of a program? Are people going to raid the rednecks yards and recycle their junk cars a few times, or some such version of the above? This program appears to be made for the scammers and con-artists. And how many billions will end up unaccounted for? Just wondering?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:30 pm
@okie,
Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:37 pm
@dyslexia,
I could do that pretty easy, dys, for alot less than 4,500, maybe get a fleet discount for a bunch of junkers. Especially if my brother in law owns an auto insurance business. And maybe my other brother in laws own junkyards or car dealerships. Lets see, I should be able to come up with something. Necessity is the mother of invention.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:38 pm
@okie,
Registered and insured to the owner for at least one year is what I heard. It's still a great big subsidy for Government Motors. It's not going to help the industry that makes and rebuilds parts for older cars. That may be partially offset by junkyards going out of business all over the country, which will run up the price of body parts. Lets see, with fewer old cars (clunkers) on the road, we surely won't be needing all those auto mechanics. A guaranteed price for anything that rolls might put some sort of floor price under used cars. Any car with resale value less than clunker value will probably be clunked, leaving the lower end of the car market unable to afford transportation.

There may be some unintended consequences lying around, or maybe all the consequences are intended.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:40 pm
@okie,
the knock on the clunker program is that it is argued that it will for the most part eat into future sales, those who have an old car AND are in good enough shape to finance a new car would have at some point have bought a new car without the program. It is a government handout which moves demand forward, does not increase demand over the long haul.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:42 pm
@roger,
Good points, roger, and one thing is for sure, when this is all over, it will be a laughing stock, and an illustration of the "law of unintended consequences." There will also be stories of corruption popping up everywhere, count on it.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
I should have thought of that, too.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 09:52 pm
@roger,
I am seriously considering using the handout....I have a 95 conversion van with 150K which gets 11mpg in the city, worth I figure $900. It is hard to pass up $4.5K ($3.5 k to me) to buy now when I prob would have replaced it with-in 2 years anyways.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 10:00 pm
I wonder if Obama's great energy experts have factored in all the energy required to dismantle these old cars, recycle them, and the energy required to manufacture the new cars. Even though they are more economical when driven, that does not tell us the total story in terms of energy consumed or wasted when you junk a car that still runs, in favor of one that requires more manufacturing, transportation, and other things to deliver to the customer.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 10:09 pm
@okie,
shame on you, you are not supposed to asks them sorts of questions!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 10:40 pm
@okie,
I think you've hit the biggie there. Consumer Report has done many articles on the various hybrids, and their potiential savings on fuel costs. At one point, they concluded that if your primary motivation were national energy savings, a used car was the best option. I am no longer a subscriber, so I can't provide a cite, but I'm not making it up.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let GM go Bankrupt
  3. » Page 26
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 09:51:03