A New Hope: Stomping Out Corporatism by AURaptor

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Now, we may argue about whether such a behemoth should or shouldn't exist. Some liken it to the Ring of Sauron: great power, wielded initially for good but corrupting to anyone who uses it.

Thanks, Signy - That's pretty much the point I was trying to walk Anthony towards in the GM/Obama thread.

Yes, I agree that it sucks that GM is so big that it's pulling the entire economy down in its whirlpool.

Yes, I think we should fund alternatives. And should have been doing so for some years now - it's not like we haven't seen this same scenario before, more than once.

No, I don't think those initiatives and alternative industries are ready to go yet. They're still blue-sky ideas, not "shovel-ready" jobs. It sucks to prop up GM for now, but if the alternative is having some 3 million people (GM workers and failing suppliers and related industries) out of work RIGHT NOW.

Anybody got three million jobs ready to fill right this second?

Nah, I didn't think so.

So we're in essence left with Shitty Choice # 1 or Shitty Choice # 2. We can dream all we want about having Choice # 3, which would be the Ideal Choice, but it's just not there right now. Why? Because WE as a nation didn't invest in it, didn't DEMAND that our government fund it, didn't DEMAND that our domestic auto industry invest in it with the profits they were pulling in from SUV sales. In short, we did what the automakers did - looked at the money and figured we'd always have tomorrow to worry about tomorrow's problems.

Guess what? It's tomorrow!

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yes, I agree that it sucks that GM is so big that it's pulling the entire economy down in its whirlpool. ...

Anybody got three million jobs ready to fill right this second?

Nah, I didn't think so.

See, that's where I think we're being bamboozled. There's this notion that our future depends on keeping the dinosaurs alive. That without them we will all be starving. I think that is at best an overstatement and at worst a complete load.

It's the same thing with the bankers, and the health care industry. We aren't helpless idiots. Just because the corporate house of cards collapses on itself doesn't mean that there's nothing left for us to do. Wealth isn't necessarily about money, and as long as we have the will to work, to create, to thrive, we can do so. And we'll do it better in the long run without the corrupt leeches bleeding away our vitality.

Health care is the same story. I'm hearing more and more stories about doctors finding out how much better it can be dealing directly with their patients - finding out how much money they can save cutting the insurance companies out of the mix. SOOOO much of the cost of health care goes to insurance overhead, ridiculous liability claims, and government imposed friction. We've allowed our economy to be slowly strangled by middle men. It's high time we clean house.

Wealth is about making the world a better place, about providing real value to our fellow human beings. I don't believe that the only way that can happen is by feeding the corporate vultures.

Quote:
Why? Because WE as a nation didn't invest in it, didn't DEMAND that our government fund it, didn't DEMAND that our domestic auto industry invest in it with the profits they were pulling in from SUV sales.

Are you telling me it was the taxpayer's responsibility to fund automotive research for the auto manufacturers??? All we ever needed to do was to stop artificially supporting them. It's what we need to do now. We've propped them up for far too long. And now that the weight is becoming too great to bear, what are we going to do? Break our backs in a last ditch effort to keep them alive?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:02 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Indeed, we act as though we are saving millions of jobs by saving the American Auto, but in reality most of those jobs are probably going to disappear soon anyhow.

The auto companies can not sustain themselves with the current demand for their product. Paying them to stay open until they find a way to become profitable again is like murdering a dead monkey.

Let's bolster new innovative companies and new industries. It'll take them a while to get up to speed? Fine. I have no confidence that the American Auto will do any better as things currently sit.

I will say that I like the infrastructure projects. They are productive with immediate and long term benefit.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:07 AM

Quote:

Are you telling me it was the taxpayer's responsibility to fund automotive research for the auto manufacturers???

Absolutely not. That was more in response to Anthony's push to fund alternatives with government money. There have been ample opportunities in the past to do just that, and they were passed by.

I'm not proposing that we keep the auto industry alive forever by propping up GM. I'm saying that it's in our best interests AT THIS MOMENT to keep them alive until we get other manufacturing up and running in this country. I don't think Tesla is the be-all and end-all that it's touted as, but I think it's certainly a step in the right direction, and I'd like to see it get more funding and grants - both from the government and from the private sector. ONE success in an alternative transportation source will kick off MASSIVE competition to find the other innovations, just as it did at the beginning of the 20th century, when there were DOZENS of American car makers.

Prop up GM in the near term, while using those government purse strings to break their stranglehold on the US automotive industry and open it up for more competition here at home - and encourage funding here at home!

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:10 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Kwicko, GM has less than a 20% market share. They're not strangling anything about the US Auto Market, unless you count our collective wallets.

The fact that you want to prop them up even though you admit they aren't viable is mind-boggling to me. You'd honestly be better off just giving money directly to the GM employees rather than filtering it through the company's decaying corpse.

And if paying people to not work sounds like madness to you, remember that it just goes to show how virtually ANY expenditure of funds is a better expenditure than keeping a failed business alive.

What really makes me feel bad is that when everyone is forced to concede the inevitable and let these businesses fail, we will find we have already dismantled worker protections like the job bank that might have benefited people. And we would have done it in the name of sacrificing tomorrow to the altar of a damned enterprise today.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Let's bolster new innovative companies and new industries

There's more than enough work to go around, from high-tech to very physical
Spiral wind turbines take up less space than traditional windmills

Tidal energy

Solar energy farms

Cool roofs

Maglev trains
(I'll find a smaller picture!)

Energy efficient skyscrapers
http://www.betterhumans.com/photos/videos/images/19068/original.aspx

DC power tranmission (the Pacific Intertie)

Reforestation

Selective timber harvesting
http://www.buskirklumber.com/images/tree_drop_for_website.bmp

Like I said: more than enough work, more than enough opportunity.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Frem,

I think this is more your speed:

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:33 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signey,

Is that spiral windmill covered in solar cells?

That seems to me like the cat's pajamas.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 6:05 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Very quickly -

What people don't seem to realize is that ALL auto sales are down - import as well as domestic. Import sales are down even further than domestic. The Japanese though do have a private/ public partnership between government and industry (not just auto, but all major industries). They will weather the storm better. AND, due to their development of fuel efficient vehicles and their superior reliability/ quality records, they will bounce back more quickly than US automakers.

SHOULD something be done about that ? As long as the US keeps it business model - quarterly profit above all - it will be at a disadvantage.

I don't think the US auto industry should be singled out for special protection and oversight. I would extend that to other industries as well (ones that have mostly or completely gone out of business in the US without outcry or even notice) - chip manufacturing, textile, steel, petrochemical, and other basic industries necessary to a modern society. As long as the US is dependent on imports for basic goods, it will be at the mercy of international trade and politics.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 6:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Anthony, whatever image that is ain't workin for me.

Mikey ?

Quote:
That was more in response to Anthony's push to fund alternatives with government money. There have been ample opportunities in the past to do just that, and they were passed by.

They did worse than that, they'd get freakin grants and funding for such, and then play games by setting up experiments and lines of "research" DESIGNED to fail, quite deliberately, while sucking up as much funding as possible, much of which was siphoned off in the usual fashions, of course.

I recall one experiment where, unfortunately, the damn thing actually WORKED, so they decided (being engineers and KNOWING what would happen) to "lighten the weight" by replacing the vehicles standard driveshaft with an aluminum one, which distinigrated in most satisfactory fashion, much to their delight - and flung shrapnel all over the parking lot, which wasn't, cause some of it nearly hit them and did damage an employees car.

This allowed them to scrap the entire line of research on that particular project before they were forced to produce a working prototype, of course.

I can tell you FOR A FACT, that GM has had the ability to create roadworthy and effective hybrid, flex-fuel and electric powered vehicles, but as long as they could squeeze every last drop of use out of standard petrol engines they meant to do it - while gouging as much research funding and grants as they could for projects they sabotaged from the get go quite deliberately.

Remember that I happen to know a hell of a lot of the folk supplying the parts and materials to the bastards, and far more of the intricate details that go on in the supply chain management than I ever really cared to or wanted to know... people talk, and when it's so bloody obvious that everyone who works at the facility not only knows, but is offering their own suggestions for making sure the tests fail, well...

I've also seen a rare few Ford testbed vehicles around here with manufacturer/test plates, at least one of which HAD to have been electric cause it had no visible tailpipe or emissions system.
(I snuck up on it and took a quick peek under cause he stopped at a local shop and I couldn't resist)

They can do it, it's just not as profitable for them, especially not when they can DEPEND on the Gov coming to their rescue no matter how badly they screw up - GM knew this bailout was coming EIGHT YEARS AGO, and was actually planning for it to happen and making arrangements to take maximum advantage, their only predictive failure was they expected it to come from a no-questions-asked corp-friendly republican administration, and did not adapt their business plan fast enough when it became clear that simply wasn't gonna happen.

You know what I think might be an acceptable alternative to loppin some heads off, cause I been thinkin about this...

Fine, we bail em out - and that automatically invalidates ALL their fuckin patents, making them public domain, since we in effect bought the goddamn things.

THAT, I would accept, follow the logic of where that goes.

Believe me, many industries would *STOP* bailout begging on the very spot if you made THAT a condition.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 6:52 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
How is it that I haven't seen Babylon 5?

Because you suck.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
In truth, I *did* watch lots of the first season, but that damned wooden-headed actor they used for the captain just completely put me off.

I understand they replaced him for S2, so maybe I'll have to track it down...

Yeah, he became a religious leader from thousands of years ago. You know how it goes, girl meets boy, girl loses boy, boy flies back in time in a conveniently placed space station thousands of years into the past to fight a universe shattering war against an ancient evil, girl finds another boy. It's a classic tale.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 7:14 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

“Anthony, whatever image that is ain't workin for me.”

It should have been an image of V from the recent film V for Vendetta, above the words CHAOTIC GOOD, followed by “Governments should be afraid of their People.”

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 7:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

As much as I loved Star Trek, I have to say that Babylon 5 was a much better written sci-fi show. (Well, most episodes, anyway.) It was magic in a bottle, though. The creator has been chronically unable to recapture the essence of his creation. All attempts to spin-off or continue the story past its core have resulted in unmitigated disaster.

Some things seem to find their own time and place to come into the world.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 7:43 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

As much as I loved Star Trek, I have to say that Babylon 5 was a much better written sci-fi show. (Well, most episodes, anyway.) It was magic in a bottle, though. The creator has been chronically unable to recapture the essence of his creation. All attempts to spin-off or continue the story past its core have resulted in unmitigated disaster.

I agree, I watched a handful of Crusade episodes, and I think I'm being fair to them, they, and the entire concept, are a big steaming pile of beagle shit. I wonder if many people who create these show are just getting lucky sometimes, I mean George Lucas created the original Star Wars films, and has shown himself to be a talentless prick ever since (IMHO Obviously). I'd be more scathing on Lucas, but don't have the time.

Anyway. I think the major thing about B5 is that is had a direction, and it was the first major show to really know, at least in broad strokes, where it was going. It had a super story arc, which has since almost become a norm among successful TV shows.

Though few shows do it as well as B5 did. Just look at what a lurching nonsense Battlestar Gallactica turned their "over arching" storyline into. Word to the wise, if it's going to have an overarching storyline, work it out first and stick to the motherfucking thing, because throwing it together as you go along doesn't fucking work.

Actually I really liked Battlestar, but that's why the slapdash nature of it all pisses me off so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 7:59 AM

STORYMARK

Well, to be fair to JMS, all the B5 spin-offs he's attempted have had a lot of interference from the studio involved. TNT forced many changes to Crusade before and durring production. WB pulled a big chunk of funding on the Lost Tales at the last minute.

He has said that after all the frustrations he's had with the attempts, that the only way he'll ever revisit B5 is as a big-budget feature, with no interferecne from suits. Which is the same as saying - never.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 8:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I really loved the reimagined Battlestar, too...

But I agree with you - they shouldn’t have embarked on a multi-season story arc when the end game wasn’t yet conceived of. They actually started the final season without having the final episode sorted yet. They say you can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been, but it’s equally true that you can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’re going.

In the end, Battlestar was like a lavish cruise to international waters and back again. The ride is eminently satisfactory, but the destination is ultimately disappointing.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:12 AM

STORYMARK

Not all writers subscribe to the school of thought that you must know the end before you start.

Just read an interview with Moore on the subject. He says his writing philosophy has always been to let the story evolve, and be open to new directions. He didn't want to set a narror path that would hinder future creativity.

Granted, this led to many places in the series where you could tell they were winging it, but they still pulled it all togwether in the end.

On the flip side, you have B5, which was so plotted from the start, that any time something unexpected happened, it threw things off. Thus the oddly repeating characters, and the almost pointless season 5.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh believe me, I could go on for DAYS laying it into the Vorlons as the actual bad guys, much like I give it to the Federation over the Maquis, I rather liked B5 because while from the perspective of the (manipulated to see it that way) characters, the Shadows are "bad guys" but from an audience perspective, you do get to see that in the end the Vorlons were bigger dicks.

And when it came right down to it, head on, both sides were acting like bratty little children throwing their toys (those being us and the other younger races) at each other in a petty, spiteful fashion more reminiscent of small children than supposed Elder races.

And they got "sent to their room" for it, too!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:18 PM

Okay, I wanted to get to all this MUCH earlier, since Anthony brought up a few things that I think perfectly illustrate the problems inherent in trying to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in one's head at the same time.

And no, Anthony, this isn't aimed at singling you out by any means; it's just that you posted things in two roughly related threads that seemed to jar with each other somewhat, so I thought it would be a great time to bring it up. I've quoted parts of the replies from both threads, and offered my own snarky commentary to help illustrate how bad the situation is for ALL involved, not just "fat cat" CEOs.

Quote:

Hello,

I hate being put in the position of the Scarlet Pimpernel. But once the blade starts falling, it is generally indiscriminate.

--Anthony

Yes, the "blade" of letting car companies fail will take out good workers as well as bad.

Which is to say, yes it sucks to lop off the heads of managers who are merely doing their jobs, but letting the company fail and crash does the exact same thing to WORKERS who are merely doing THEIR jobs. Seems a bit indiscriminate, eh?

Quote:

Hello,

Nobody cries for the witches during a witch hunt, because nobody likes a warty witch. But when someone points at YOU and calls you witch, you might feel differently.

Especially if you’re just an hourly employee trying your best to do a good job…

More than a few people around here have laid the entire blame for GM's demise at the feet of the hourly employees, as if they set the direction for the company and management merely follows them, instead of the other way 'round.

Quote:

There's more to bonuses and 'fat cat' luxurious business retreats than meets the eye sometimes.

Yes, and there’s more to “fat cat” overpaid union jobs than meets the eye sometimes, too.

Quote:

Where I work, the most efficient workers are nominated to attend a yearly retreat in some exotic locale, like a trip to Vegas or a nice Cruise ship to nowhere, or Hawaii.

It's important to recognize that even in a business that is losing money, there are individuals who do their jobs VERY well, and if you don't reward such individuals via incentives, they tend to slow down or disappear.

This is possibly doubly important in a poor economy, because you may not be able to promote a good employee or give substantial raises, but the cost of a business retreat is comparatively small in the long run.

Where I work, I *AM* the most efficient employee. I work alone in the warehouse; I run the warehouse single-handed. I handle all of the imports and exports. I do all the assembly, I do all of the shipping and receiving. Before I came to work here, there were FOUR employees in the warehouse – one full-time and three part-timers. You know what I got for my bonus this year? Zilch. You know how pissed I am about that? Not one whit. My boss pulled me aside to meed with me at year's end, and told me how things were going - in a word, badly. I told her I understood that times have changed and that we're in survival mode, and if I finish out this year still having my job, I'm ahead of the game and doing better than lots of people. She cried. I *KNOW* I'm a valuable employee and a good worker, and I *KNOW* that if we survive and thrive, I'll be rewarded when times are better. I also explained to my boss, the owner of the company, that if she tried to give me a hefty bonus or a raise right now, I'd turn her down flat; we're just not in a financial position to afford it right now.

Quote:

Unfortunately, due to public disapproval, there are amazing employees where I work who are getting zilch for their efforts. People who do the work of 2 or 3 average employees are being thanked with a big "Sorry, it's bad PR to send people on 'fat cat' retreats in this environment. Please keep being a stellar employee anyway, even with no tangible reward."

I've yet to see a witch hunt where only the witches burn. But by all means, enjoy the bonfire.

--Anthony

I agree, but there are intangible rewards that can keep morale high even in down times. Sometimes, a boss just singling you out and saying "Great job!" can turn your whole week around. Would I *like* to have a nice bonus and a decent raise? Sure. Have I earned them? Probably. But I'd gladly forego them in the interests of keeping the doors open through these perilous times and keeping my job around longer than just another month or two.

And yes, it grinds my gears to have to stand here and defend GM. I loathe GM vehicles. I haven't bought an "American" vehicle in years, because I find them to be laughably crappy, cheaply built out of sub-quality parts, and woefully unreliable and short-lived. But I'm asking that GM be kept alive right now for the sake of the good workers there. If nothing else, keep them working and producing while we figure out how to manageably dismantle the auto giant and break off the pieces into smaller, faster, better, more innovative car companies. I'd love to see Saturn spun off and start turning out wonderfully-engineered, efficient small cars. I'd love to see one or two of the divisions spun off into fuel-cell and electric car manufacturers.

You pointed out that GM is "only" 20% of the domestic car market, but 20% for any one maker is a pretty huge chunk of the entire market - and GM is far more than just an AMERICAN auto manufacturer. In fact, it's much more than a manufacturer, period. A huge part of what's pulling GM into a hole right now is their financial division, GMAC, and its subsidiaries like DITEC ("Lost another one to Ditec!" - yes, THAT Ditec). But just in auto manufacturing, GM is still one of the largest car companies in the world. How do you suppose Japan would be affected if Toyota were to go belly-up tomorrow, taking its Lexus and Scion brands with it?

Now, if you all really want to just flush those jobs and workers down the drain, feel free. But please don't complain about the aftermath.

Just a few things to ponder...

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
How is it that I haven't seen Babylon 5?

Because you suck.

Dang. I knew there must be a reason...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:33 PM

Quote:

Fine, we bail em out - and that automatically invalidates ALL their fuckin patents, making them public domain, since we in effect bought the goddamn things.

THAT, I would accept, follow the logic of where that goes.

Still catching up after a BUSY day at work (and damned glad to have it, honestly!).

But yes, this does seem like a hell of a proposal. How BAD do you want a bailout?

And seriously, what's the alternative? I mean, if GM goes into bankruptcy and China comes along with cash in hand, do we really want to let the patents go that route? Not that the Chinese have ever had much need or use for such mundane things as "patents" or "intellectual property" or anything...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And yes, it grinds my gears to have to stand here and defend GM. I loathe GM vehicles. I haven't bought an "American" vehicle in years, because I find them to be laughably crappy, cheaply built out of sub-quality parts, and woefully unreliable and short-lived. But I'm asking that GM be kept alive right now for the sake of the good workers there.

Forgive me, but this reminds of the "patriots" who insisted that we must keep fighting in Iraq because doing otherwise would betray the good intentions of our soldiers. Something in that kind of logic just seems backasswards to me. The simple fact is, if they're building a product no one wants, they should stop, as soon as possible.

I'm wondering if you've considered how this sort of policy effects companies who didn't make the mistakes GM has. Smaller, upstart companies wait in the wings for just such an opportunity and they should be allowed to reap the benefits of their agility and/or foresight. Propping up the fatcats just because they have more employees is punishing the very companies we should be rewarding.

Quote:
If nothing else, keep them working and producing while we figure out how to manageably dismantle the auto giant and break off the pieces into smaller, faster, better, more innovative car companies.

But the thing is, in a free market economy "we" don't make those decisions. The way such changes take place is through the natural incentives of the marketplace - a company either adequately meets market needs, or it perishes. If we monkey with that, we're throwing sand in the gears of the system and making things worse.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:52 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mike/Kwicko,

My principle point, sorely missed, is that these companies our nation is so desperately trying to save are failing. I am not proposing a witch hunt by letting them fail. The result may be that good employees lose their jobs along with bad employees, but you won’t see me lighting the fire. That fire is already burning, and we are incapable of extinguishing it.

It would be like trying to save a falling man by diving after him. The gesture has no significance. You are both now going to die.

As we discuss this, Chrysler and GM are on the cusp of bankruptcy. This is very much a WHEN and not an IF scenario. When they go bankrupt, the monies spent to save them will have been wasted. When they go bankrupt, the desperate union renegotiations will have been a shot in the foot. When they go bankrupt, everything bad we’ve been trying to avoid will still have happened, except that we’d have wasted several billion in the interim.

Letting a terminal patient die is not inhumane. It’s not cruel. It’s not vindictive, and it’s not a witch hunt or a guillotine party. It’s merely inevitable. Resources should be spent on the living. I don’t want to buy Chrysler or GM a shinier coffin. I want to buy the American people a shinier tomorrow. That tomorrow is not to be found in the cabin of a discontinued Cadillac or Hummer.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"a company either adequately meets market needs, or it perishes"

So many people seem to have a view of capitalism that's quaint. They think it's exemplified by a cobbler in his shop, crafting shoes and then going out to the local market-place to hawk his wares by haggling over the trade.

But in capitalism, you are not the 'owner' of your product. You not do set the valuation of the goods you have produced. You do not benefit reap the full benefit of its sale.

And in the market-place, no one is at least theoretically paying too much. When the two sides settle on a price, they BOTH think it's the fairest deal they're going to get. In capitalism, you are not free to settle on individual valuation. In capitalism, if you want it, you pay what they ask.

Capitalism is ownership of the means of production. Those who don't own the means of production trade their work for their lives. In capitalism, the goal is not to 'produce goods', or 'serve a market need' - it's to MAXIMIZE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF GOODS PRODUCED BY OTHERS.

It's that simple.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"a company either adequately meets market needs, or it perishes"

So many people seem to have a view of capitalism that's quaint. ...

It's that simple.

How so? I didn't really see how any of your comments addressed my statement, or proved it to be "quaint".

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The way such changes take place is through the natural incentives of the marketplace - a company either adequately meets market needs, or it perishes. If we monkey with that, we're throwing sand in the gears of the system and making things worse."

This is quaint. It assumes capitalism = free market. It assumes the 'goal' of business under that model is to 'serve a market need' and not to maximize profit by any means necessary. It assumes that if a business 'fails' in its 'goal' (of serving a market need) then the system will self-correct, rather than have some larger and more predatory organization take over.

It's VERY quaint, and naive.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:50 PM

No, it's not.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:52 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

“Let them Die.” --Captain Kirk, Star Trek VI, the Undiscovered Country

**********

“The General Motors Ultralite was a 1992 low emission vehicle concept car intended to demonstrate the benefits of advanced materials and low fuel consumption. The carbon fiber shell was fabricated by Scaled Composites and it amounted to only 420 pounds (191 kg). The total weight was 1,400 pounds (635 kg). Its 3 cylinder 1.5 L two stroke engine could produce 111 hp (83 kW), which made a speed of 135 mph (217 km/h) possible. The goal was to make a four passenger show car capable of 100 miles per US gallon (2.4 L/100 km; 120 mpg-imp). It was rated at 88 miles per US gallon (2.7 L/100 km; 106 mpg-imp) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

The shape was reminiscent of the Ford Probe concept, and the Ultralite presaged the production General Motors EV1 electric vehicle and other production models.”

**********

There are drivers on the road today who weren’t even born yet when this prototype rolled off the assembly line. The American Automaker didn’t suffer from a lack of foresight. Or innovation. They saw exactly where the world was headed, predicted exactly what the consumer would want, and they built it. By God, they built it, and they were pioneers. 88 miles per gallon, 135 miles per hour.

HALF that performance (44 miles per gallon, 67 miles per hour) would likely find buyers. Not only American buyers, but buyers all around the world. So even if that seventeen year old prototype had to give up HALF of its performance in order to make it into production, and even if it took them FIVE YEARS to go from prototype to production, they’d have beat the Toyota Prius to American distribution by FOUR YEARS.

The American Auto is in the shape it’s in today because companies like GM tried to bury the next-gen technology they developed instead of putting it into production. It wasn’t a failure to innovate. They innovated. Then they actively tried to retard the advancement of industry.

This was seventeen years ago. That is how long I can confirm that GM was headed in reverse while foreign companies were in fifth gear. They led the charge into irrelevance. Let them die. If we are very lucky, new upstarts will bring us back into the 21st century. But that can’t happen as long as we coddle our diseased elder giants.

--Anthony

(Writing to confirm Frem's earlier supposition about GM technology.)

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Forgive me, but this reminds of the "patriots" who insisted that we must keep fighting in Iraq because doing otherwise would betray the good intentions of our soldiers. Something in that kind of logic just seems backasswards to me. The simple fact is, if they're building a product no one wants, they should stop, as soon as possible.

I'm wondering if you've considered how this sort of policy effects companies who didn't make the mistakes GM has. Smaller, upstart companies wait in the wings for just such an opportunity and they should be allowed to reap the benefits of their agility and/or foresight. Propping up the fatcats just because they have more employees is punishing the very companies we should be rewarding.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Mike/Kwicko,

My principle point, sorely missed, is that these companies our nation is so desperately trying to save are failing. I am not proposing a witch hunt by letting them fail. The result may be that good employees lose their jobs along with bad employees, but you won’t see me lighting the fire. That fire is already burning, and we are incapable of extinguishing it.

It would be like trying to save a falling man by diving after him. The gesture has no significance. You are both now going to die.

Letting a terminal patient die is not inhumane. It’s not cruel. It’s not vindictive, and it’s not a witch hunt or a guillotine party. It’s merely inevitable. Resources should be spent on the living. I don’t want to buy Chrysler or GM a shinier coffin. I want to buy the American people a shinier tomorrow. That tomorrow is not to be found in the cabin of a discontinued Cadillac or Hummer.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Interesting points, both of you. I'm not immovable. And now I've got new perspectives to look from. Thanks for that!

Mike

just lying smiling in the dark
shooting stars around your heart
dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple everytime
now you're crying in your sleep
i wish you'd never learnt to weep
don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple everytime

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

American auto makers exclusively pursued high-profit models like SUV's. It was in the interests of maximizing short-term profits.

They could have made and sold a high gas-mileage model as well, but then they'd have to spend twice as much (or more, since most components would not have been able to be borrowed from other car lines) on facilities and tooling and workforce. It would have cut down their profit margin. They went with what was immediately easy, convenient, available, and most of all - maximally profitable - future be damned.

BTW - you will find that true of all innovations over the years - fought tooth and nail by the auto industry as a whole: seat belts, catalytic converters, higher CAFE standards ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:13 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

You know what really chaps my shorts? A big, ugly, box-shaped monster of a vehicle like the Hummer could have easily been turned into a pure electric. In smaller cars, getting the right location and number of battery cells is a challenge. A Hummer’s gargantuan size would have solved any problems of finesse. They could have easily had a soul-crushing electric SUV operating on EV-1 technology that would’ve pleased both the Monstrous Truck and Tree Hugger demographic. Then, concept proved, they could have refined it to make electric SUV’s of smaller size, down to the smallest Jeep-like-vehicles.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 4:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Not about that in particular ...

I'm still waiting for my dream car - sigh. I guess I'll just have to keep on waiting.

Uses ethanol \ reformer \ fuel cell \ direct electric drive \ ...
***************************************************************

What more could anyone want ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 8:53 PM