How liberal/conservative are you?

[Netzach]

Your neighbours' tax money pays for the fire departments that will put out the fire if your house goes up in a blaze. Their taxes pay for the police department that makes your neighbourhood safer. And your countrymen pay the taxes that make the military possible that keeps the wolves from your door.

Each of these things are publically supported services that are useful, sensical, and, I would hazard to guess, okay in your book.

Why do we support these services? Because it adds value to the community, state, and nation, and provides services that we could largely not afford as individuals. Personally, I can't afford private security, an army on call, and my own fire service. I rather enjoy the protection afforded by the govt version.

Strengthening the community is important. We pool our buying power, accept an honestly slight burden in the form of taxes, and reap benefits far beyond what we could individually procure (in most cases). Well, the same could be said for the Wanda's of the country. Do we have a pressing obligation to help them simply because they exist within our borders? Not necessarily. Is there worth in it though? Good question.

Let's examine a more extreme case than Wanda - prison inmates. Truly unpleasant people who have been exiled away from society for their misdeeds. Do we owe them education support, etc? Well, yes, we owe them some support minimally because they can't exactly leave to go find things like medical care. But what about education, job skills, etc? Anyone that studies penology, and is honest, will tell you that education, job training, and preparation for real world integration reduces recidivism rates. The short version is that teaching an inmate to swing a hammer, install electrical fixtures, and the like gives him a chance at a better life outside, thus less need to turn back to crime.

Insert Wanda into this. Wanda may not be prone to crime, but if her situation gets desperate enough, she just might turn to vice or outright crime to keep food on the table. If she really can't accomplish it, she will wind up as yet another homeless person. Call me crazy, but I don't want more criminals and homeless people.

The system failed many of these folk along the way. Education is another service government provides using our tax dollars, and most people don't bitch about it. Again, public education is a better alternative than the sort of schooling that most of us can afford. The major point of public education is supposed to be equipping young people with the skills and knowledge to be productive members of society, at least at some minimally useful level. Far too many of the people at the bottom rungs of society do not possess the skills needed to get by in the capitalist world. Quite a few of them would benefit from those skills, and enter the job force, and then we would have another productive taxpayer. Doesn't that beat another street person?

And I'm not blaming the d system there. Circumstances happen, and teachers can only work with what the students will let them work with. But the system should be such as to have ways of helping those kids that need it most.

Overall, I see a pressing need for a safety net. When the bottom falls out, and it has fallen out a LOT as of late, we need something in place to keep people from totally hitting rock bottom. We do not need thousands of people on the streets looking for shelter. We're one of the richest nations in the world for fuck's sake.

Do we need to do more? No. Not at all. No legal duty. But we can. And the result would be more people paying taxes, producing goods and services, and staying off the streets and out of prisons. That means a stronger nation all around.

So well put.

nd the result would be more people paying taxes, producing goods and services, and staying off the streets and out of prisons.

And buying lots and lots of crap! Not all of it on credit. Buying enough crap that you need more people to sell and make crap to buy!

Let's not forget this isn't fluffy bunnies for me. Just making that clear again. I need the CM's and me's of the world to have some disposable freaking cash at the end of the month and most other places in the industrial world, they do!

I'm telling you, naked greed is a huge motivator here. Naked greed which pulls us all up a bit.

 

[Homburg]

So well put.

Thank you.

At some point, I'll post a rant about why libertarian policies would utterly and completely fail if allowed to rule at the national level. Just to poke my own side a bit more (as this discussion is on an anti-libertarian issue)

 

[Netzach]

Thank you.

At some point, I'll post a rant about why libertarian policies would utterly and completely fail if allowed to rule at the national level. Just to poke my own side a bit more (as this discussion is on an anti-libertarian issue)

I'd love to hear that actually.

I've always thought the reason for this is every time someone starts a story with the phrase "my DUMBASS neighbor...."

 

[Netzach]

I can understand it. I guess I would like to see personal handouts treated the same way as corporate handouts. Give folks the help they need, and attach happy little conditions to it like "attend job training", "apply to get jobs", "keep a job when you get one", etc. Unfortunately, we aren't very diligent on attaching conditions to corporate handouts either.

Le sigh.

What about carrots for those things? We use big carrots all the time. They may be more effective than the stick coming out every time you don't get it right. Gracie's "pass your classes and get all credits paid" idea comes to mind. Get really good grades put a stipend on it?

Just genuinely interested. That idea never gets discussed unless people are talking about less than 100,000 dollars for some reason.

 

[Netzach]

I checked “Very Liberal” since there was no listing for “Realist.” What do I mean by that? I did a post in the café in early October of 2007 that got no comments or responses. Here is the link:

Reality​

The last paragraph is the kicker. If anyone has had his portfolio or 401(k) implode, he can’t say he wasn’t warned. As for schadenfreude, I ‘ll have mine on the half-shell with a tall grass of warm blood, thank you.

[The post was in a thread on the ill treatment given to disabled veterans returning from Iraq.] I warned everyone that I knew that the idea of going after Saddam, the architect of 9/11, was both nonsense and a fool’s errand. I also knew that my advice would be regarded with utter contempt. It was. Any realistic view of the Cheney-Bush rush to war had to see that it was all about oil. Well, hell, if the fools intend to make bucks for Haliburton, who am I to stand aside from that level of profit?

As far as the prediction of economic turbulence before the 2008 election, my only fear that it would happen after the 15th of October. It usually takes 4-5 weeks to anything to penetrate the general consciousness – excepting the latest crap from some reality show. Fortunately, the idiot Paulson decided to screw the “other team” by letting Lehman Bros go down the tube on September 15th. It seems never to have occurred to him that Lehman’s collapse could suck the entire economy into the vortex. So instead of the election being a toss up between Obama and McCain, Obama was assured of a win.

Oh, by the way, I define happiness as a SPY put @ $135 and GE @ $30 – laughing all the way to the bank.

Actually, I’m an Economic Determinist. The Conservative is happiest when those at the bottom are fighting like junk yard dogs over a few pathetic scraps– that way they don’t notice all the fun at the top. [But then as Simone de Beaviour observed: America is the only industrialized country in the world with a fascist working class]

********​

As I take note of the huge number of people here who classify themselves as liberal but opposed to big government, I can’t help but think that John M Olin must be laughing hard enough to spit his coffin open. The puppet master certainly knew how to pull everyone’s strings!

I miss your posts now that the election's over.

 

[WriterDom]

Very impressive.

I'd be interested in your reaction to the following excerpt from this 2007 article on the pay of auto executives.



GM CEO Rick Wagoner earned $9.3 million in salary and bonus in 2006, nearly double what he earned in 2005.

Chrysler's new CEO, Bob Nardelli, became a symbol of corporate excess when he left Home Depot early this year with a $210 million severance package. Ford's new CEO, Alan Mulally, got $27.8 million in salary and bonus in his first few months on the job, including an $18.5 million signing bonus.


"There is a huge difference between Asia and here when it comes to the top executive compensation," says Han Kim, a professor of business administration at the University of Michigan. "Rarely in Asia, especially Japan and Korea, do the CEOs get paid more than a million dollars."

Japanese companies are not required to break out salaries and bonuses for top executives. Instead, they lump them together. Last year, Toyota's top 37 executives earned a combined $21.6 million in salary and bonuses, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. U.K. firm Manifest Information Services, which analyzes proxy information, estimates Toyota's top executive, Hiroshi Okuda, earned $903,000 in 2006.

At Honda, the top 21 earned $11.1 million, combined, in salary and bonuses, SEC filings show.

"There is this huge gap between the average worker and the CEO, and the gap is greatest in the U.S.," Kim says. "That kind of thing might work where individual work counts the most, but in the manufacturing sector, it's all about teamwork."

It's economics which is half art and half science. There was the dot.com bubble, the housing bubble, the executive pay bubble, the oil bubble. Gold will probably crash if the market comes back. Giving GM and Chrysler a dime in my opinion was a mistake. Let them merge and see how they do.

I'm excited about Ford though. I think they will do great things. Thunder is crashing all around me and it feels like Sherman is advancing. Time to bury the silver in the yard. Funny thing is I have a 100 ounce bar on the desk.

Part of me thinks no one should make over a million a year but so many liberal fucks get 20 million for a movie. Or 100 million for a tv show.

 

[Netzach]

It's economics which is half art and half science. There was the dot.com bubble, the housing bubble, the executive pay bubble, the oil bubble. Gold will probably crash if the market comes back. Giving GM and Chrysler a dime in my opinion was a mistake. Let them merge and see how they do.

I'm excited about Ford though. I think they will do great things. Thunder is crashing all around me and it feels like Sherman is advancing. Time to bury the silver in the yard. Funny thing is I have a 100 ounce bar on the desk.

Part of me thinks no one should make over a million a year but so many liberal fucks get 20 million for a movie. Or 100 million for a tv show.

*scratches head* Like everyone on FOX?

I appreciate economic genius. I don't grudge Gates his billions really, because he did an amazing job of running that thing, truly. Though it's obscene to realize that if you took his money and divided it evenly among the populace in 1997 (my ex and I did this math, bored, one night)

You, me, Homburg, Wanda, Bill O'Reilly, and Bubba Clinton, we would all, everyone, get ten grand.

Neither here nor there. At least this guy found people and made something that works and people buy.

Does no one realize that there's life in between what I'm being told is actually a 95/5 split in the distribution of wealth in this country (I wish the guys in charge of AIG would just start wearing epaulets and boots and pith helmets) and Stalinist Russia?

 

[JMohegan]

It's economics which is half art and half science. There was the dot.com bubble, the housing bubble, the executive pay bubble, the oil bubble. Gold will probably crash if the market comes back. Giving GM and Chrysler a dime in my opinion was a mistake. Let them merge and see how they do.

I'm excited about Ford though. I think they will do great things. Thunder is crashing all around me and it feels like Sherman is advancing. Time to bury the silver in the yard. Funny thing is I have a 100 ounce bar on the desk.

Part of me thinks no one should make over a million a year but so many liberal fucks get 20 million for a movie. Or 100 million for a tv show.

Why doesn't that article make you angry?

Why do you claim that the "cushy" salaries and benefits of union members "killed the car companies," but brush off the gross incompetence and exorbitant pay of American auto executives as just some bubble thing?

You justified outrageous executive compensation by saying that "not many people can run a Fortune 500 company." But how do you justify the fact that American executives are paid so much more than their Japanese peers? Doesn't that seem somehow out of whack to you, particularly when you consider that the American executives have been majorly fucking up relative to the Japanese?

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

I miss your posts now that the election's over.

Thanks!

I do peek over the window sill now and then. I have a lot of eggs to fry.

 

[Netzach]

Gold is overvalued. Any time it's more than a decent interview suit for a regular guy per oz, it comes back to that price. I would definitely ignore silver. If you have a bar, keep it, definitely, and don't be sad, but don't assume a huge upward trajectory. I think the 28 bucks I paid on a drawn oz at one point was a ceiling.

This advice is pulled from the ass of someone who buys precious metals as raw materials not market shares only.

 

[Myskaninen]

hehe well acourding to american standards I probably are defined as an communist though I am not

 

[WriterDom]

Why doesn't that article make you angry?

Why do you claim that the "cushy" salaries and benefits of union members "killed the car companies," but brush off the gross incompetence and exorbitant pay of American auto executives as just some bubble thing?

You justified outrageous executive compensation by saying that "not many people can run a Fortune 500 company." But how do you justify the fact that American executives are paid so much more than their Japanese peers? Doesn't that seem somehow out of whack to you, particularly when you consider that the American executives have been majorly fucking up relative to the Japanese?

But I guess it's cool if some cunt gets 25 million for making a fucking movie just because she had good bone structure in her face and can read lines. That would never outrage you, would it? You probably voted for John Kerry. Who married a woman whose global carbon footprint probably exceeds my entire town.

The reason my friend, has to do with mathematics. You can cut Wagoner's pay as much as you want. From 2.2 million down to a jelly donut. Or fire him like the president. But if you are paying worker bees 20 dollars an hour over you competition, that's a eight billion dollar a year disadvantage. Ok that might be overstated. I don't know the pay scale of secretaries. I'll suck your cock if the average GM secretary makes less than a Honda one, but for the sake of argument lets cut that figure in half to 4 billion a year. That's a huge disadvantage. And I don't know any rational person who would choose a GM over a Honda or Toyota unless they were "buy American" brainwashed. And the quality is a management problem. I'm not saying the lesser paid workers are better.

And I never said fuck the union guy. Since you are pushing government run health care why can't he sign up for medicare rather than getting his fully funded blue cross? Why should he be on GM's teat for the rest of his life?

 

[Homburg]

I'd love to hear that actually.

I've always thought the reason for this is every time someone starts a story with the phrase "my DUMBASS neighbor...."

Libertarian thinking on world policy issues is basically "eh, not my problem," in other words, calculated indifference and unwillingness to "meddle" in the affairs of other nations. It is the global version of their take on the social safety net. It is full of fail.

You live on a quiet street of nice houses of normal construction. On a dry, windy night, the house on the other side of your neighbour's catches fire. You look at it and think "eh, not my problem." The owner of that house attempts to deal with the blaze, but his efforts are insufficient.

The wind picks up and blows cinders from that roof onto your neighbour's roof. Now your neighbour's house is on fire. "Eh, not my problem," is still your response. Your neighbour runs out and tries to put out the fire. You could help, but you don't meddle in the affairs of others.

The wind picks up again, and this time the cinders land on your roof. Your house catches fire. And none of your neighbours come to help because you won't help them.

(Interestingly, this parable was related by Neal Boortz. He was using it as commentary both on the libertarians (whom he actually respects and tends to side with and support), and the internationally laissez-faire wing of the republican party.)

 

[Netzach]

But I guess it's cool if some cunt gets 25 million for making a fucking movie just because she had good bone structure in her face and can read lines. That would never outrage you, would it?

Actually it does. I see about 2 hollywood movies made in the last year per year. I don't buy magazines. I need a decoder identifying SNL guest hosts. You will have trouble finding someone who cares less off of Keroin's island.

You probably voted for John Kerry. Who married a woman whose global carbon footprint probably exceeds my entire town.

Yep. I weighed it against the carbon footprint of Laura Bush and threw a dart, I was really torn. [/QUOTE]

The reason my friend, has to do with mathematics. You can cut Wagoner's pay as much as you want. From 2.2 million down to a jelly donut. Or fire him like the president. But if you are paying worker bees 20 dollars an hour over you competition, that's a eight billion dollar a year disadvantage. Ok that might be overstated. I don't know the pay scale of secretaries. I'll suck your cock if the average GM secretary makes less than a Honda one, but for the sake of argument lets cut that figure in half to 4 billion a year. That's a huge disadvantage. And I don't know any rational person who would choose a GM over a Honda or Toyota unless they were "buy American" brainwashed. And the quality is a management problem. I'm not saying the lesser paid workers are better.

Look at the salary *distribution* in Japan. The point is that the head of Toyota does not make the salary of the average worker there to the power of 400 all the while going "wow, we're not doing too good."

This isn't some kind of gun to the head communist regime, it's just a free market imbued with some sense of decency and common sense and SOMEONE watching the fingers in the cookie jar at the government level - utterly lacking at GM.

And I never said fuck the union guy. Since you are pushing government run health care why can't he sign up for medicare rather than getting his fully funded blue cross? Why should he be on GM's teat for the rest of his life?

Maybe making medicare suck less would mean that more people would choose it given a choice and the unions would relax their iron clutch on these kinds of things. I'll tell you one thing, GM itself would love that to happen. So would most large businesses.

The Japanese company doesn't have to kill itself to pay competitive health packages for every schmuck on the line in Japan because they don't have to worry about feeding and medicating the retired worker to the same tune.

They are mainly privatized, with the government covering the needy and community pools for the average prole. But they pay half as much and live to 98.

Insurance is our GNP right now, and health care our single biggest social liability. Changing this is not optional.

 

[ZRT]

Libertarian thinking on world policy issues is basically "eh, not my problem," in other words, calculated indifference and unwillingness to "meddle" in the affairs of other nations. It is the global version of their take on the social safety net. It is full of fail.

You live on a quiet street of nice houses of normal construction. On a dry, windy night, the house on the other side of your neighbour's catches fire. You look at it and think "eh, not my problem." The owner of that house attempts to deal with the blaze, but his efforts are insufficient.

The wind picks up and blows cinders from that roof onto your neighbour's roof. Now your neighbour's house is on fire. "Eh, not my problem," is still your response. Your neighbour runs out and tries to put out the fire. You could help, but you don't meddle in the affairs of others.

The wind picks up again, and this time the cinders land on your roof. Your house catches fire. And none of your neighbours come to help because you won't help them.

(Interestingly, this parable was related by Neal Boortz. He was using it as commentary both on the libertarians (whom he actually respects and tends to side with and support), and the internationally laissez-faire wing of the republican party.)

That's why I'm not a Libertarian proper myself. God forbid one ever get elected to anything substantial.

My dream, an entirely unrealistic dream, is to get about half a dozen Libertarian congressmen, maybe one senator. They could rant and rave on the floor of Congress and blow the lid off of various stupid bills and schemes.

It'd never work because they either wouldn't bring home the bacon and thus would get unelected in a hurry, or else they'd become part of the system. But basically, I want that caterwauling counterbalance.

The die-hard Libertarians should take a good look at Somalia, because that's the best example going of a minarchist government. I seriously doubt most of them would want to live there.

That said, I'm still a firm believer in 'stay the fuck off my lawn!' and in minimizing public intrusion into our affairs. It's the Necessary Evil principle that I'm so fond of.

 

[Netzach]

Libertarian thinking on world policy issues is basically "eh, not my problem," in other words, calculated indifference and unwillingness to "meddle" in the affairs of other nations. It is the global version of their take on the social safety net. It is full of fail.

You live on a quiet street of nice houses of normal construction. On a dry, windy night, the house on the other side of your neighbour's catches fire. You look at it and think "eh, not my problem." The owner of that house attempts to deal with the blaze, but his efforts are insufficient.

The wind picks up and blows cinders from that roof onto your neighbour's roof. Now your neighbour's house is on fire. "Eh, not my problem," is still your response. Your neighbour runs out and tries to put out the fire. You could help, but you don't meddle in the affairs of others.

The wind picks up again, and this time the cinders land on your roof. Your house catches fire. And none of your neighbours come to help because you won't help them.

(Interestingly, this parable was related by Neal Boortz. He was using it as commentary both on the libertarians (whom he actually respects and tends to side with and support), and the internationally laissez-faire wing of the republican party.)

It's pretty rockin' for social policy in a pluralistic society, but applying that to econ, geopolitics and other spheres, not so much.

 

[Homburg]

That's why I'm not a Libertarian proper myself. God forbid one ever get elected to anything substantial.

My dream, an entirely unrealistic dream, is to get about half a dozen Libertarian congressmen, maybe one senator. They could rant and rave on the floor of Congress and blow the lid off of various stupid bills and schemes.

It's pretty rockin' for social policy in a pluralistic society, but applying that to econ, geopolitics and other spheres, not so much.

This is what it comes down to. I want libertarian influences in my government. I want libertarian voices. I don't want a libertarian president (even though I have voted for them more than once). This is why I call myself a small-l libertarian. And I consider myself a minarchist simply because it is opposition tot he trend, and opposition is healthy.

 

[WriterDom]

Japan has a culture. America has a culture of greed. It's like comparing a Yellow Jacket to a June Bug. That being said I don't think it is a function of government to limit salaries.

 

[Netzach]

Japan has a culture. America has a culture of greed. It's like comparing a Yellow Jacket to a June Bug. That being said I don't think it is a function of government to limit salaries.

It is when you are coming sobbing to them going Dad I need a loan.

 

[Netzach]

That's why I'm not a Libertarian proper myself. God forbid one ever get elected to anything substantial.

My dream, an entirely unrealistic dream, is to get about half a dozen Libertarian congressmen, maybe one senator. They could rant and rave on the floor of Congress and blow the lid off of various stupid bills and schemes.

I'm pulling attention back to Jeff Flake, a republican, oddly enough given how I feel about the species at this moment in time.

He got pulled off the Judiciary committee by his own party because he didn't get the memo that said we're against earmarks unless they are OURS, ya chump. He's going after Dem corruption at the moment, but this is one person who really does seem driven by cleanup fervor no matter where the dirt came from. Shrewd cat, as long as he can keep his constituents in his PR loop.

An honest neocon? I mean how weird. I'm beginning to wonder if this kind of real neo-neo younger generation versus the same old is going to be the new split in senate and house, more strongly than along party lines. That would be cool, if I personally thought that cutting spending and no one paying the piper to improve anything were working. As it is, it's a part of the puzzle of solutions to at least have someone nipping at the heels and asking where the money we are spending is going.

 

[JMohegan]

But I guess it's cool if some cunt gets 25 million for making a fucking movie just because she had good bone structure in her face and can read lines. That would never outrage you, would it? You probably voted for John Kerry. Who married a woman whose global carbon footprint probably exceeds my entire town.

The reason my friend, has to do with mathematics. You can cut Wagoner's pay as much as you want. From 2.2 million down to a jelly donut. Or fire him like the president. But if you are paying worker bees 20 dollars an hour over you competition, that's a eight billion dollar a year disadvantage. Ok that might be overstated. I don't know the pay scale of secretaries. I'll suck your cock if the average GM secretary makes less than a Honda one, but for the sake of argument lets cut that figure in half to 4 billion a year. That's a huge disadvantage. And I don't know any rational person who would choose a GM over a Honda or Toyota unless they were "buy American" brainwashed. And the quality is a management problem. I'm not saying the lesser paid workers are better.

And I never said fuck the union guy. Since you are pushing government run health care why can't he sign up for medicare rather than getting his fully funded blue cross? Why should he be on GM's teat for the rest of his life?

I know you didn't say "fuck the union guy." But you did blame union guys for the demise of American auto manufacturing (see below).

My view is that there's something majorly fucked up about a system that rewards executives so lavishly, whether they succeed or not at fostering a healthy, productive company that can be competitive over the long haul.

I'm a big time fan of the free market, risk/reward tradeoff. But when the "rewards" to the top tier accrue regardless of performance, and the "risks" taken by the guys in charge are blunted or all but eliminated, incentives for prudent long-term decision making evaporate. Shortsightedness and the interests of the individual (rather than the company) rule the day. The system malfunctions and the workers, as well as the rest of us, suffer mightily.

Wagoner may be out of a job, but after presiding over 82 billion in losses in 4 years and leading GM to the brink of destruction, he can live fat & happy for the remainder of his days.

Same thing is true for most guys at the top, or formerly at the top, on Wall Street - guys who presided over a disastrous run of 30 to 1 leverage and outrageously irresponsible lending/securitizing/repackaging, that very nearly caused the collapse of our entire financial system.

I'm not saying that unions are perfect, or that it makes sense to keep pushing for higher benefits when the company is circling the drain. I'm just offering a different perspective on what "killed the car companies." I don't think we have an effectively functioning risk/reward incentive structure in the upper echelons of our current system.

The unions killed the car companies by paying workers over 70 dollars an hour for turning bolts with an air wrench. When Toyota and Honda was paying 50 dollars an hour.

 

[ZRT]

As it is, it's a part of the puzzle of solutions to at least have someone nipping at the heels and asking where the money we are spending is going.

I forget who said earlier that they were 'pro-education', which was an interesting statement to me because I've never heard a politician admit to being anti-education, and for that matter I've never heard one in serious contention who didn't take the automatic and arbitrary position that we need to Spend More Money On Schools. Sure, other things might be tossed into the mix, standards testing and so on, but it's been pretty much a given that schools just always always always need more money than they're getting.

But it's never analyzed in the realm of public discussion. What does it matter how much money we spend on schools, if the most of it is going to feed bloated administrative overhead?

That's the sort of thing we need an honest voice on. The reason I'm so big on keeping the government out of things whenever possible is because the government basically creates unaccountable monopolies in areas it moves into, and the oversight gets buried in mountains of bureaucratic minutiae. I remember the big push to computerize schools, as if a computer magically makes learning improve. Bullshit. Sure, a modicum of computer literacy is pretty much a necessity for damn near every job out there, and training is necessary for that. But for teaching fundamental education? Not at all. I learned my math and reading with nary a computer involved in the process.

But it sounds sexy, it's good advertising for a campaign, and it ultimately diverts money from areas that need it. Or it flat out is money that doesn't need to be spent in that sector.

Corporate excess is a problem, but government excess and waste is worse by an order of magnitude because corporations have multiple areas of vulnerability- profit margin, litigation, legislation. Government bureaucracies by their nature really aren't vulnerable to much of anything, especially in such a large and labyrinthine system such as ours. Corporations can be broken by law. Governments are law. Combine this with slick marketing, and we end up drowning in red tape.

ETA: This is why I want somebody with some balls in there to stab at the sacred cows.

 

[WriterDom]

GM should have died. Happens every day in America. Corporations are like living beings. They have a life cycle and sometimes that ends in death. They did a survey and here are the main reasons for decline. And you can see GM in a lot of them

Too much debt 28%
Inadequate Leadership 17%
Poor Planning 14%
Failure to Change 11%
Inexperienced Management 9%
Not enough Revenue 8%

Don't think I'm defending this fuck who ran GM into the ground. I don't know why he wasn't removed sooner. Sometimes a ship is going to sink no matter who is the captain. Injecting government and union onto the board of GM to me is pretty funny. You might want a GM after this. I'm not stepping on to the lot.

 

[JMohegan]

GM should have died. Happens every day in America. Corporations are like living beings. They have a life cycle and sometimes that ends in death. They did a survey and here are the main reasons for decline. And you can see GM in a lot of them

Too much debt 28%
Inadequate Leadership 17%
Poor Planning 14%
Failure to Change 11%
Inexperienced Management 9%
Not enough Revenue 8%

Don't think I'm defending this fuck who ran GM into the ground. I don't know why he wasn't removed sooner. Sometimes a ship is going to sink no matter who is the captain. Injecting government and union onto the board of GM to me is pretty funny. You might want a GM after this. I'm not stepping on to the lot.

I agree that this "too big to fail" bullshit has got to stop. It contributes to the perversion of the risk/reward construct, and virtually guarantees that these crises will happen again and again and again.

If they're too big to fail, then they're too big to exist. They should never have been allowed to reach this size in the first place.

This is one reason why I'm not a pure libertarian from an economic perspective. There's a desperate need for responsible regulation in this country, and preventing the creation of economy-threatening behemoths is just one example of what's lacking.

 

[Homburg]

Japan has a culture. America has a culture of greed. It's like comparing a Yellow Jacket to a June Bug. That being said I don't think it is a function of government to limit salaries.

No, it's the job of the fucking "free" market, and we've failed to do so. We, as consumers should be fucking bright enough to put a stop to this bullshit. It is raising the prices we pay.

I've been telling people for years to take their fucking dollars elsewhere, and let Detroit rot.

--

I know you didn't say "fuck the union guy." But you did blame union guys for the demise of American auto manufacturing (see below).

My view is that there's something majorly fucked up about a system that rewards executives so lavishly, whether they succeed or not at fostering a healthy, productive company that can be competitive over the long haul.

The bolded part is what makes me blow a fuse. Isn't GM's CEO going to Toys'r'us now? Mother Jesus Balls. Why would anyone hire a twit that pissed away that much money, market position, and brand cache? It's insipid.

I'm not saying that unions are perfect, or that it makes sense to keep pushing for higher benefits when the company is circling the drain. I'm just offering a different perspective on what "killed the car companies." I don't think we have an effectively functioning risk/reward incentive structure in the upper echelons of our current system.

I'm glad to see you recognising the Union's hand in this. All too often, the right screams about the unions, and the left yells about the bosses. They're both at fault. The unions need to realise that they need to let go a bit, else their meal ticket will die. And the management needs to look out the fucking window, get some sunshine, and reconnect to the rest of the world. The union may be doing everything they can to bleed GM dry, but the management is doing everything they can to STAY THE COURSE, and are telling the stockholders and everyone else that the rockwall in front of them is just a little speedbump.

Chrysler and GM deserve to die. They've bought their own demise with wrong-headed policies, shit-brained design, short-sighted market-research, inability to make the labour see the light, and general muddle-headed idiocy. Fuck em.

Ford stands poised to reap HUGE rewards. They are surviving largely because they turned down the bailout when offered. It made them look monolithic and bad-ass in comparison to GM and Chrysler, and that alone was sufficient to boost their outlook. Assuming they survive, and they look to, they will be the sole owners of the "buy American" crowd. It won't ensure their dominance, but it will sure as hell put a solid grasp on a good chunk of the market.

Fortunately, they're turning out solid cars right now too, and their design is really making headway on intelligent cars too. The Fusion I had for a while as a company car was a _good_ car. I'm a fucking car guy, so me calling it a good car means something. It was like driving an Accord or Camry, and everyone that rode with me commented on how nice, smooth, and quiet it was.

Keep it up, Ford. Introduce a small, diesel light truck with better gearing (ie hauling gears, not performance gear ratio) and MPG and you will triumph. Look to Europe and Australia for ideas on how they do their light haulers. The truck market still exists, and is starting to wake up to this idea. Look at the medium truck market for example. Isuzu is making HUGE inroads into towing and medium hauling with their "small" diesels (as is UD/Nissan, and even Mistubishi with the Fuso line). The market saw them as underpowered initially, but the fuel efficiency, proper gear ratios, outstanding reliability, and strong warranties are selling trucks. Ford can do the same thing easily.

And, please, oh car gods, convince Ford to bring their EXISTING small car diesel tech over here. I want a 60MPG non-hybrid Fiesta. Srsly.