SW17LS

What you are describing is not true capitalism. Capitalism by its very nature provides for investment as a means to create wealth for the person doing the investing. Investing money for the overall good of the public is a tenant of socialism, not capitalism. With capitalism trade and industry are controlled by private enterprise for profit.

Do some reading:

https://www.thebalance.com/capitalis...s-cons-3305588

What you want is for the people to control these factors of production and to make investment decisions for GM based on their own needs, rather than maximizing profit. Thats socialism.

We have a very good economy for our fellow citizens, its just not an economy where manufacturing has a bright future.

And at one time the UAW was not a strain, but that time has past. You have to stop living in the past.

mmarshall

No. I am speaking of a lot more than GM. Capitalism is a lot older than GM itself.......and older then Ford, which itself pre-dates GM.

The exact same arguments you are making now were also being made against the UAW in the 1960s, when Ford and GM were at their peak. The UAW did not prevent GM and Ford from selling vehicles back then (and making a profit), and are not doing so today. It is true, however (or partly true, anyway) the the nature of the market has changed......SUVs, except for Jeep Wagoneers and the International Scout/Travelall, were almost insignificant back then.

SW17LS

Who said you were talking about GM? Your description of "pure capitalism" is not correct. Pure capitalism is profit first, everything else secondary. What you're describing is socialism.

The UAW put Ford, GM and Chrysler into the position they are in now. The UAW was founded and exists for the benefit of Auto workers, not auto companies. Theres nothing wrong with that, thats a great thing but they repeatedly forced the automakers into deals which hurt them financially and kept them from being able to compete with global competitors who didn't have those union contracts around their necks. The UAW operated for decades with no eye to the future, just get the best deal you can for your members so they'll remain members and damn the consequences down the line. Well, the pain you see now comes out of that behavior 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. You could make an argument that this offshoring of manufacturing is actually more the UAW's fault than it is GM's.

You know a lot about cars Mike, but you don't know a lot about business. I've found thats common with career government workers. You wake up twice a month and there's a check for everything you need, you don't worry about being downsized or demoted or fired, and if your employer can't make ends meet, they just print more money. The real world doesn't work that way...

mmarshall

[QUOTE=SW17LS;10409006]
First, government is a part of the real world...it regulates it. Second, Federal retiree, by law, get paid once a month...not twice, like active employees. Third, government agencies cannot just sit down and make up their own budgets, or print their own money......they are dependent on Congress and the President. Even the Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, downtown, cannot just keep and spend that printed money *****-nilly....it is slightly controlled by one of the strictest processes in the country. Fourth, I DO agree with you on one point....there is FAR too much waste in Federal budgets. Something is wrong when agencies re-paint their office walls or buy (unnecessary) new office furniture rather than turn back any excess money in the budget....I saw that happen routinely.

SW17LS

The fact that you're complaining about the fact that I said you got paid twice a month and you get paid once (I was talking about active employees, by the way) illustrates that you completely miss my point. The point is, you get paid every month as a retiree. That doesn't exist elsewhere in the world lol. Most people in private enterprise plan for their own retirement, their retirement income is derived by savings and investing THEY have done. When your agency has a budget shortfall, they don't lay people off. They run over budget and adjust the budget next time. They aren't accountable for their production or margins. Its an ENTIRELY different thing. You enjoy a comfortable, risk free retirement and you enjoyed a comfortable, risk free living when you were working. Thats not reality for people who work in the private sector, and its not reality for people who run businesses and companies and actually drive the economy.

I have a lot of clients who are federal employees and I see this all the time, no concept of what the world is like from a business standpoint. My point is not to single you out, but to try and make you understand that decisions made like this are not made out of greed. These people who run GM take this all very seriously. As somebody who owns a business that employs people and who is responsible for their livelihood I can tell you, this has kept Mary Barra up at night. Its what needs to be done to keep the company healthy though for the long term facing a market that is going to have tremendous change over the next 5-10 years. They owe that foresight to their other employees and shareholders, and to the legacy of the company itself.

You should watch this. The focus is Ford, but this applies to GM even moreso since they aren't as well positioned as Ford. This discusses some of the market realities these companies and the industry are facing and will be facing:

mmarshall

It exists every day for millions under Social Security....which is, in effect, a tax-supported pension, just like the one I have. I don't get SS, though (nor do I deserve to), because under our retirement system, we never paid into it.

So did I. I didn't just ignore my future. I made many tax-free municipal investments, so I wouldn't have to rely on my pension alone. If anything, it paid off more than I expected.....I make more than I need, even in retirement.

Ever hear of a RIF (Reduction-in Force)? That's when an agency gives up and issues pink-slips.


First, if anything, that shows that it is necessary to improve things for those in the private sector....and IMO you don't accomplish that by shutting down plants. Second, you can't say that what I did was not beneficial to the economy. We worked, every day, to keep both civilian and military planes flying, through updated charts, navigation information, NOTAMS (Notices to Airmen), and a number of other aviation-related issues. Much of today's commerce (not to mention Fed-Ex and UPS) is carried by planes.

I watched the video. It's basically a cheer-leading film for the dump-the-sedan movement.

Thanks for the compliment...but, by my own admission, I'll take a back seat to King Alex in the reviewing department, and to Motorweek's Pat Goss in automotive mechanics/electronics. Goss, though, despite his excellent knowledge, can get a little extreme in his demands for routine service. If you did everything he "recommends", you'd clean out your bank account in routine service alone.

SW17LS

You get WAY more pension pay than people under SS get. Nobody can live a life outside of poverty on social security, even at its maximum.

Because you didn't have to worry about a pension is why you could make municipal investments which earn no return. There is no way I could save enough to retire using that strategy.

You just don't get it, like I said its common for those who are in your situation. You've operated in a government bubble for your working life and you just don't get it.

Extremely rare, and there are also a huge array of assets allocated to employees that are subject to a RIF, and depending on your tenure they cant RIF you without giving you a replacement position. None of that exists in the private sector where employment is totally at will.

What exists for government workers CANNOT exist for those in the private sector. If private companies adhered to the same HR regulations that Federal agencies do, companies would go out of business. A company that is out of business employs NO ONE.

I didnt say what you did was not beneficial, I said that you don't understand the realities of employment or employing in the private sector, and the more you write the more clear it is you don't.

You absolutely do accomplish strengthening the company by shutting down plants that are under utilized and no longer fit into your company's plan. If companies don't make hard choices like that, they endanger their future and the futures of the rest of their employees. They don't have limitless funds like the Government does.

Its reality Mike. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not reality.

Toys4RJill

Allen K

iTrader: (4)

Politicians are going to make a fuss because that's what they do to keep their constituents happy. Unless they are going to incentivize GM to stay via tax credits or other means, there's really nothing their belly aching is going to accomplish

mmarshall

mmarshall

This goes beyond "fuss"...we're way past that point. I've never seen this kind a reaction before on a national-government level, and I've been following the industry since the 1960s, through all kinds of crises. Marry Barra has not simply opened up a can of worms.....she has let out a herd of Bengal Tigers.

SW17LS

All bark and no bite. Lose their business license in Canada even more Canadians lose their jobs.

Toys4RJill

mmarshall

Nor should they......if GM is in violation of an agreement. Looks like this could wind up in court....possibly even Canada's Supreme Court.

Toys4RJill