GM retiree launches anti-Senator Shelby website.
12-11-2008, 05:10 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
cont.
Problems with this part.
1. You completely ignore that these companies got here at the very least through actions of their own making more than anything else.
2. You look at the government saddling them with heavy, impossible to meet regulations, yet ignore the fact that the "Car Czar's" job as defined (again, a few key taps will give this information) is to ensure that auto companies that get these loans actually work towards profitability so the government can get their money back, just like it did with Chrysler's 1979 loans.
Again, you paint the unions as the cause for this, while those who ran the auto companies are blameless according to your post.
It's common knowledge as to whay Chrysler is in the mess it is. It's also pretty much known why GM is where it is. If all 3 automakers were in the same identical mess with the same identical problems, then we'd have soemthing to talk about. However, what GM and Chrysler needs to do are different and Ford doesn't even need government money. Yet all 3 deal with the same unions and all 3 pay the union members the same wages and abide by the same UAW rules. Since all 3 US automakers have different problems, and 1 US automaker is actually in relatively good shape, that means laying the blame on the union is scapegoating.
a) What do you mean "National Security as a resource as in WW2"?? I'm not following your meaning.
b) Lutz and Wagoner were starting to turn GM's products around. Lutz has been there for over 6 years, Wagoner for 8. Yet you don't see how your statement "starting to turn GM around sounds. It's pretty damning. To this day, neither have the power to really run GM. Both must submit to various internal GM entities to get anything done. It takes 2-5 years to develop a vehicle. Look at how long they have been there, and do the math. You aim at unions, yet you ignore GM's own structure. And in all fairness, that both Daimler and Cerberus have pretty much gutted Chrysler to the point where it is today.
c) Investment and loan are the same thing. When you invest in something, you expect a good rate of return. When you loan moeny, you also expect to get that money back with intrest.
d) I don't know what you mean when you say keeping "govt involvement to the minimum of working business models". I wonder if you are aware of the meaning of "business model". Here's why I say that.
Business model is the framework of a particular business. The big 3's business model for years has been something that has baffled many of us here on this site. Why?
First, it's heavily based on a group of vehicles that offer high profit on investment, but is very venerable to fuel price changes and economic conditions. Large trucks and SUVs.
The next part of the business model was that instead of produicing vehicles based on demand, production was focused on beating previous years numbers at all costs by sending them out the factory door, lending money to dealers to hold them (earning money for the company's financial arm) and then turning around and spending like the dickend to convince the public to buy the inventory, even if when everything was added up, it was sold at a loss. As long as GM owned GMAC and was selling large numbers of high margin SUVs and trucks, GM could pay the bills. Both Ford and Chrysler also depended on this model to some degree. If any of them needed to move certain models, they could use their loan divisions to do this via low or no intrest loans (because they made profits through dealers borrowing to finance their inventory, these finance arms still made money).
But when large trucks and SUVs faltered under high fuel costs, and GM lost control of GMAC and it's new owners started tweaking with loan qualifications, suddenly this house of cards that passed as a business model crashed with lightning speed. All the things that GM was paying for via this pyramid scheme suddenly was about to drive GM out of business. That's why GM North America is a disaster (and has been for some time) while GM operations outside North America that focuses on the vehicle for profits does very well.
So when you state that the government will get involved with it's business model as if it's a bad thing, I really think we need to take time to look at how the business model up to now has fared with the US automakers.
Ford started changing it's business model back in 2006. Chrysler never took the time to change it's model (over 75% of vehicles it sells are classified as trucks, while it's car side's business model depends on sales to fleet and rental agencies). GM has made great strides in product, but doesn't seem to have grasped the need to change it's business model and bureaucracy till within the last 12 months.
Talk about late to the party.
Next to all this, the government (who seems hellbent to get taxpayer money back), which will basically force Cerberus to create a survivible Chrysler and GM to act instead of creating it's umpteenth restructuring that does nothing actually may do some good for US automakers.
That is if the good Senator Shelby and good Senator Corker let it, instead of shooting the whole industry down.
And, my friend.... they aren't liberals, they aren't greenies, and they aren't democrats.
Again, there is no such thing because all politics are in fact local.
Conservatives Senator Shelby and DeMint prove this since the preservation of American industry, jobs, and distrust of foreign entities are traditionally conservative, red meat ideas just as much as the internationalism of Liberals should indicate a willingness to support foreign auto brands due to the belief of their superiority. In both cases, both sides have focused on local realities over idealogy.
Originally Posted by 5thgen69camaro
Adding worse restrictions of green requirements and a car czar and I only hope GM pays off the loan early to get away from getting saddled with more disadvantages like this. I could go on and on, but to say its meaningless is not correct.
1. You completely ignore that these companies got here at the very least through actions of their own making more than anything else.
2. You look at the government saddling them with heavy, impossible to meet regulations, yet ignore the fact that the "Car Czar's" job as defined (again, a few key taps will give this information) is to ensure that auto companies that get these loans actually work towards profitability so the government can get their money back, just like it did with Chrysler's 1979 loans.
Ending the Unions would be the one Silver lining, however I realized that is the one constituantcy the Dem controlled congress does not want to fail. They have to prop up the evil corprate host so the parasitic Unions can survive. Man what a mess
It's common knowledge as to whay Chrysler is in the mess it is. It's also pretty much known why GM is where it is. If all 3 automakers were in the same identical mess with the same identical problems, then we'd have soemthing to talk about. However, what GM and Chrysler needs to do are different and Ford doesn't even need government money. Yet all 3 deal with the same unions and all 3 pay the union members the same wages and abide by the same UAW rules. Since all 3 US automakers have different problems, and 1 US automaker is actually in relatively good shape, that means laying the blame on the union is scapegoating.
BTW I went for this because.
National Security as a resource as in WWII
Wagoner and Lutz started to turn GM around
Loan not a investment, Subsadies or stock.
I assumed at the time as it was a loan rather than investment that would keep govt involvement to the minimum of working business models. I was wrong.
National Security as a resource as in WWII
Wagoner and Lutz started to turn GM around
Loan not a investment, Subsadies or stock.
I assumed at the time as it was a loan rather than investment that would keep govt involvement to the minimum of working business models. I was wrong.
b) Lutz and Wagoner were starting to turn GM's products around. Lutz has been there for over 6 years, Wagoner for 8. Yet you don't see how your statement "starting to turn GM around sounds. It's pretty damning. To this day, neither have the power to really run GM. Both must submit to various internal GM entities to get anything done. It takes 2-5 years to develop a vehicle. Look at how long they have been there, and do the math. You aim at unions, yet you ignore GM's own structure. And in all fairness, that both Daimler and Cerberus have pretty much gutted Chrysler to the point where it is today.
c) Investment and loan are the same thing. When you invest in something, you expect a good rate of return. When you loan moeny, you also expect to get that money back with intrest.
d) I don't know what you mean when you say keeping "govt involvement to the minimum of working business models". I wonder if you are aware of the meaning of "business model". Here's why I say that.
Business model is the framework of a particular business. The big 3's business model for years has been something that has baffled many of us here on this site. Why?
First, it's heavily based on a group of vehicles that offer high profit on investment, but is very venerable to fuel price changes and economic conditions. Large trucks and SUVs.
The next part of the business model was that instead of produicing vehicles based on demand, production was focused on beating previous years numbers at all costs by sending them out the factory door, lending money to dealers to hold them (earning money for the company's financial arm) and then turning around and spending like the dickend to convince the public to buy the inventory, even if when everything was added up, it was sold at a loss. As long as GM owned GMAC and was selling large numbers of high margin SUVs and trucks, GM could pay the bills. Both Ford and Chrysler also depended on this model to some degree. If any of them needed to move certain models, they could use their loan divisions to do this via low or no intrest loans (because they made profits through dealers borrowing to finance their inventory, these finance arms still made money).
But when large trucks and SUVs faltered under high fuel costs, and GM lost control of GMAC and it's new owners started tweaking with loan qualifications, suddenly this house of cards that passed as a business model crashed with lightning speed. All the things that GM was paying for via this pyramid scheme suddenly was about to drive GM out of business. That's why GM North America is a disaster (and has been for some time) while GM operations outside North America that focuses on the vehicle for profits does very well.
So when you state that the government will get involved with it's business model as if it's a bad thing, I really think we need to take time to look at how the business model up to now has fared with the US automakers.
Ford started changing it's business model back in 2006. Chrysler never took the time to change it's model (over 75% of vehicles it sells are classified as trucks, while it's car side's business model depends on sales to fleet and rental agencies). GM has made great strides in product, but doesn't seem to have grasped the need to change it's business model and bureaucracy till within the last 12 months.
Talk about late to the party.
Next to all this, the government (who seems hellbent to get taxpayer money back), which will basically force Cerberus to create a survivible Chrysler and GM to act instead of creating it's umpteenth restructuring that does nothing actually may do some good for US automakers.
That is if the good Senator Shelby and good Senator Corker let it, instead of shooting the whole industry down.
And, my friend.... they aren't liberals, they aren't greenies, and they aren't democrats.
Again, there is no such thing because all politics are in fact local.
Conservatives Senator Shelby and DeMint prove this since the preservation of American industry, jobs, and distrust of foreign entities are traditionally conservative, red meat ideas just as much as the internationalism of Liberals should indicate a willingness to support foreign auto brands due to the belief of their superiority. In both cases, both sides have focused on local realities over idealogy.
Last edited by guionM; 12-11-2008 at 05:20 AM.
12-11-2008, 07:12 AM
#17
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sandy VJJville
Posts: 3,584
DeMint was also against the $700b financial bailout package. I'm not saying this to refute what you mentioned, because I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the BMW presence in the state has to do with his opposition to the automotive bill, but there is at least some consistency to his stand against these bills.
12-11-2008, 10:59 AM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CNY
Posts: 2,224
DeMint was also against the $700b financial bailout package. I'm not saying this to refute what you mentioned, because I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the BMW presence in the state has to do with his opposition to the automotive bill, but there is at least some consistency to his stand against these bills.
But how vocal were these guys about the $700B financial bailout?
I don't remember hearing from them when that was going down.
Now they're holding press conferences and trumpeting to whoever will listen, their opposition to this measure.
12-11-2008, 11:08 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 176
The politics don't surprise me. It serves as no counter arguement. Shelby's hand and voice may have alittle something behind it but either way he speaks the truth.
His criticism is valid and consequenting the majority of the public agrees with him. A website critical of him is of no issue to me. Free speech and debate. Calling for a "boycott" is comical.
His criticism is valid and consequenting the majority of the public agrees with him. A website critical of him is of no issue to me. Free speech and debate. Calling for a "boycott" is comical.
12-11-2008, 12:23 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sandy VJJville
Posts: 3,584
I don't know how much time he spent on the news networks crying out against the $700B bailout, but there are several videos out there of his speeches against it (as well as the automotive plan.)
12-11-2008, 12:30 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,173
DeMint was also against the $700b financial bailout package. I'm not saying this to refute what you mentioned, because I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the BMW presence in the state has to do with his opposition to the automotive bill, but there is at least some consistency to his stand against these bills.
12-12-2008, 02:19 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
I remain convinced that there is no such thing as conservative or liberal. These are simply terms to get those who don't like to think for themselves, and prefer everything in black and white, right or left. Thinking in degrees takes effort, as does recognizing that there's such thing as drawbacks and there is no such things as absolutes. I'll make my case based on what you say below.
saying "theres no such thing as conservative or liberal" rather than " theres no such thing as A conservitive or liberal" leaves ALOT of leaway. The first as you stated it is absoloutely false, the later is debatable. You keep using the two interchangibly and theyre not.
First, you say you are anti-government. It should stay out of private industry. Yet, you flip and say that it's OK for the government (not private banks or loan institutions) to provide loans. Those loans WILL come with strings attached just like loans from any other entity. At the very least, there must be a reason given to apply for loans and those loans must be used for that very reason. Regardless as to if it's a Bank or lending institution or the Federal Government. You are for a government loan. That pits you against your stated self.
On the other hand the regulation such as CAFE, Gas Guzzler tax which targets US industry that thrives in the Truck market, imposed is not their own devices. The loans are to make the company profitable with a working business model. Not to tell the company what cars they will produce, etc etc.
There is also the National Security issue of having manufacturing at home for in the event of war.
To be clear, I have a conservitive bias, but there is no conservative aspect of wanting to give the loans to GM.
Second, you say you are against Government projects. Yet, I bet you drive your car on a highway pretty often, let alone a surface street. Depending on where you live, you get electricity in your home. You have running water and a sewage system in your house. Guess what pilgrim? Those were the result of Government projects. .
As far as taxes, lets have a quick education here.
First of all, our taxes are the lowest in the industrialized world. By far. That's why when you see foreigners become super rich, they migrate to the US if they live in a 1st world nation.
Next point is that our expendatures (bills) don't become smaller simply because we refuse to take in more money. Government spending (ironically) went into sharp decline in constant dollars in the 1990s, especially the 2nd half. At the same time income (tax recipts rose) and there was no tax cut. The result, a booming economy, we were paying off out accumulated debt from the 1980s, and we had a very strong dollar.
This past decade, we gave a massive tax cut to the richest 2% while the rest of us got roughly an average of an extra couple of hundred dollars per family. In the meantime, the difference was made up by China who freely bought our debt and today our economy is held hostage to China. If China tomorrow decided to cash in 1/3 of US bonds, notes, and other ways it financed deficit spending, you could pretty much kiss the US economic system goodbye. Our money wouldn't be worth much, and since US dollars are the currency oil is purchased, you would see the cost of oil blast into the strastosphere overnight (although the rest of the world's oil price would be relatively stable).
The "Conservative" approach to finance would be to self finance. However, we've been using China to bankroll our unwillingness to raise the money we need to run the country. That's the stereotypical liberal approach.
Final point, unions. I can go into a whole thesis as to why the union isn't an issue anymore, and the notion it is is rooted in the 70s and 80s far more than it is today. But I'll leave it at this: 1) Labor is 10% of the cost of a new car. A Pizza from your local pizza parlor is about 90%. 2) The UAW has less than 1/3 the members it had in it's heyday in the late 70s. 3) the last 2 negotiating cycles, the UAW gave up pretty much all the items that made it look ridiculous. There are still people I call parrots (those who repeat what they heard without having the foggest idea if it's true or not) who say the UAW is full of people paid $70 per hour turning wrenches. It's very easy to see what the UAW is being paid via internet and a few taps of the keys. Guess that's too much work for some people.
First of all, our taxes are the lowest in the industrialized world. By far. That's why when you see foreigners become super rich, they migrate to the US if they live in a 1st world nation.
Next point is that our expendatures (bills) don't become smaller simply because we refuse to take in more money. Government spending (ironically) went into sharp decline in constant dollars in the 1990s, especially the 2nd half. At the same time income (tax recipts rose) and there was no tax cut. The result, a booming economy, we were paying off out accumulated debt from the 1980s, and we had a very strong dollar.
This past decade, we gave a massive tax cut to the richest 2% while the rest of us got roughly an average of an extra couple of hundred dollars per family. In the meantime, the difference was made up by China who freely bought our debt and today our economy is held hostage to China. If China tomorrow decided to cash in 1/3 of US bonds, notes, and other ways it financed deficit spending, you could pretty much kiss the US economic system goodbye. Our money wouldn't be worth much, and since US dollars are the currency oil is purchased, you would see the cost of oil blast into the strastosphere overnight (although the rest of the world's oil price would be relatively stable).
The "Conservative" approach to finance would be to self finance. However, we've been using China to bankroll our unwillingness to raise the money we need to run the country. That's the stereotypical liberal approach.
Final point, unions. I can go into a whole thesis as to why the union isn't an issue anymore, and the notion it is is rooted in the 70s and 80s far more than it is today. But I'll leave it at this: 1) Labor is 10% of the cost of a new car. A Pizza from your local pizza parlor is about 90%. 2) The UAW has less than 1/3 the members it had in it's heyday in the late 70s. 3) the last 2 negotiating cycles, the UAW gave up pretty much all the items that made it look ridiculous. There are still people I call parrots (those who repeat what they heard without having the foggest idea if it's true or not) who say the UAW is full of people paid $70 per hour turning wrenches. It's very easy to see what the UAW is being paid via internet and a few taps of the keys. Guess that's too much work for some people.
Agree with what you said about China. Especially with the spend our way to recovery ideas, I wonder how real risk of Govt collapse is.
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; 12-13-2008 at 09:20 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cmsmith
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
08-27-2015 06:37 PM
cmsmith
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
08-20-2015 07:57 PM
zFrank
New Member Introduction
3
08-12-2015 03:46 AM
Henson071
Parts For Sale
0
08-04-2015 09:32 AM