Saving the US Auto Industry

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Since you claim to read before you reply, then you know solutions were posted repeatedly. Please. Show us that you do more than post wisecracks. Show us that you actually comprehended what you replied to. Since solutions were posted repeatedly, and since classicman claims to understand what he reads, then classicman can repeat those previous solutions.

Anyone can read The Economist and numerous other publications. Not all readers bother to grasp facts. Many readers simply seek facts that agree with their political agenda – ignore everything else. classicman - this is where you demonstrate which kind of reader you are. Those solutions have been posted repeatedly. Your question was answered previously if you read for knowledge. Show us that you read to understand; not read to simply reinforce a political agenda. You can answer your own question IF you comprehended what contradicts political bias.

Classic, I do declare that he clearly states above that he has no answer.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Huh. Radar loves. Something, anyway.



Conspiracy theory. I do not take such junk food for thought. But people whose pots couldn't exactly be called entirely intact -- they do.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact. The man who invented the battery was in the documentary "Who killed the electric car" and he openly admitted he sold the battery technology to GM, and later GM sold it to oil interests.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Show us that you do more than post wisecracks. Since solutions were posted repeatedly~snip~

Nope - I have not seen one post of yours present ANY original thought or solution. Simple regurgitations of that which was previously published in The Economist do NOT count. Try again.

Originally Posted by tw

Anyone can read The Economist and numerous other publications.
Many readers simply seek facts that agree with their political agenda – ignore everything else.
Those solutions have been posted repeatedly. tw, Show us that you read to understand; not read to simply reinforce a political agenda. You can answer your own question IF you comprehended what contradicts political bias.

True, anyone can read The Economist as tw has repeatedly posted to a point beyond redundancy. PLEASE POST original solutions and/or suggestions without quoting The Economist - just once. No mental midgets or 85% of top management allowed. Criticism will not work either. Since tw has such a high opinion of him/herself, this should be easy and should take no more than two paragraphs. No political agenda, nor biases allowed. Now please try again. Oh and answering a question by directing another poster to answer if for you doesn't count either. That would amount to simply attacking another poster which we all know tw would never do.

[skysidhe]

So did we get to any conclusion on the matter?

well the government hasn't either.

[classicman]

I dunno -I'm eagerly awaiting tw's response. He has had a lot of insight in other areas, I imagine he will on this one too.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I dunno -I'm eagerly awaiting tw's response. He has had a lot of insight in other areas, I imagine he will on this one too.

When you list the many 'already posted' suggestions, then you have finally read what was posted and a useful conversation can occur. Obviously, you want to argue in the tradition and style of Rush Limbaugh. The topic is "Saving the US Auto Industry" - not entertaining cheap shots. Read what was posted since the question obviously was answered long ago.

Why do you again ignore what was posted? Why do you routinely post with no useful facts? Why do you never demonstrate knowledge?

[tw]

From MarketWatch of 7 Dec 2008 in "Lawmakers close to deal on Big Three
Dodd says GM chief should resign, Shelby threatens filibuste"

Meanwhile, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, voiced support for a rescue by added that GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner should step down.

Were lawmakers so dumb as to not see this obvious problem? Well, Mulally may actually be good for Ford. Ford does not need the money. Ford, after eliminating the bean counter Jaques Nasser, finally designed some 70 Horsepower per liter engines - albeit 20 years too late. But finally, car guys were allowed to design something.

Both Nardelli and Wagoner have a history of running companies destructively. Nardelli did bad things to Home Depot and was paid $200million to go away. Wagoner created record losses in GM North America and was therefore rewarded with the top executive position. Highest auto profit margins are in North America - and Wagoner still created record losses.

Well, maybe the powers that be have been silent so that the number one problems make themselves obvious. Maybe waiting for the Board of Directors to finally eliminate the obvious problem. One could not be more dumb by blaming GM's entire problem on economic conditions. Wagoner said GM has a good products and productive factories. Hardly. Wagoner said GM's only problem is the economy. Ostrich mentality. Wagoner has no restructuring plans because Wagoner is an MBA - is that much divorced from reality. So maybe Congress is letting Wagoner and Nardelli simply hang themselves?

Unfortunately, the longer these problems exist without any solution planning, the more imperiled are the jobs of all Americans - especially auto workers. Neither GM nor Chrysler have any serious plans to fix themselves. In both cases, their #1 problem still remains in denial.

So what do dumb executives do? They again discuss a merger as if the myth - economies of scale - will solve everything. Another myth taugh in to business school graduates.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

Nope - I have not seen one post of yours present ANY original thought or solution. Simple regurgitations of that which was previously published in The Economist do NOT count. Try again.
Criticism will not work either ...and should take no more than two paragraphs. No political agenda, nor biases allowed. Oh and ... directing another poster to answer if for you doesn't count either. That would amount to simply attacking another poster which we all know tw would never do.

Originally Posted by tw

When you list the many 'already posted' suggestions, then you have finally read what was posted and a useful conversation can occur. Obviously, you want to argue in the tradition and style of Rush Limbaugh. The topic is "Saving the US Auto Industry" - not entertaining cheap shots. Read what was posted since the question obviously was answered long ago.

Why do you again ignore what was posted? Why do you routinely post with no useful facts? Why do you never demonstrate knowledge?

Hmmm?

[tw]

Originally Posted by tw

Well, maybe the powers that be have been silent so that the number one problems make themselves obvious. Maybe waiting for the Board of Directors to finally eliminate the obvious problem. One could not be more dumb by blaming GM's entire problem on economic conditions.

GM's Board of Directors did it again - today reaffirmed support for the man who drive GM North America into record losses and now is driving all of GM into massive losses. Denial is that widespread in GM.

Meanwhile, those who will oversee auto company restructuring are defined by some Democratic leaders as

one or more officers from the executive branch with appropriate expertise in such areas as economic stabilization, financial aid to commerce and industry, financial restructuring, energy efficiency and environmental protection.

IOW they also want another bean counter; not a car guy.

Well, the US government is becoming more socialist every month. Having become owners of AIG and other financial companies, now government will owns auto companies. At what point do we let free market forced fix companies by eliminating the #1 problem - top management? GM is going to restructure when its CEO says the problem is not inside GM?

How much does a mirror cost? Apparently $15billion cannot buy one.

[tw]

GM's vice chairman remains just as myopic; in denial. Lutz said

My sense of frustration is that all of this is hopelessly out of date. Much of what I read and hear is reflective of the criticism that would have been legitimate of General Motors in the 1980s, but not today.

GM still does not even have a (real) hybrid or 70 horsepower per liter engines in all cars. Innovations that were suppose to be implemented in the 1990s and 1980s.

[classicman]

How do you feel about the car czar position? I hear they are looking for someone.

[HungLikeJesus]

I'll second tw for car czar.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I vote for Jay Leno.

[xoxoxoBruce]

From here.

But that was before the shady story of Cerberus, the uber-connected private equity firm that owns Chrysler, reared its three ugly heads over the weekend.

snip

Turns out that Cerberus CEO John Snow, who spent three-and-a-half lackluster, and some might say lap-doggish, years as President Bush's second Treasury secretary, is leading a who's who of crony capitalists in a lobbying campaign for a taxpayer bailout to "salvage Cerberus' investment in Chrysler."

snip

Of course, Cerberus is sparing no expense to spare their investors any exposure. Together with Chrysler, it has spent $7 million to hire such high-rent lobbyists as Dan Quayle (who runs one of Cerberus' international units), former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) and former Bush legislative liaison David Hobbs. Their goal: $7 billion from the auto industry bailout package Congress is working on now and another $8.5 billion in loans from the Energy Department that have already been authorized.

snip

I am not a finance expert, but what makes this episode so outrageous is that even a casual observer can see what a taxpayer ripoff Cerberus appears to be getting away with--but Congress and the Bush administration somehow cannot or will not. Why are they unable tell the obvious difference between General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) and Chrysler? GM is broke, can't get a loan and is actually facing an emergency. Via Cerberus, on the other hand, Chrysler has access to loads of capital, and the only thing collapsing is its credibility.

Ain't it grand? I suspect much more of this bail-out piñata is going to keep the rich kids rich.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ain't it grand? I suspect much more of this bail-out piñata is going to keep the rich kids rich.

There are many other examples. Simply follow the employment trails that lead through Goldman Sachs. Many more questionable relationships are associated with the monies.

We would be much smarter to give that money to Cisco, General Mills, Honda, Johnson & Johnson, and other companies who are productive - advance mankind - meet the definition of patriotic American. The great societies don't try to protect jobs in defective companies such as USX (US Steel). Great societies create new jobs where innovation is alive and rampant.