Author Topic: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?  (Read 820 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39418
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« on: January 19, 2010, 07:54:55 AM »
Who Is Really Running Detroit?
GM, Chrysler, and Ford deserve credit for finally building cars Americans want. But the real driver of change is the Obama administration.
By Julie Halpert | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 15, 2010

________________________ ________________________ _____

The Detroit auto show, which opens to the public Saturday, normally kicks off with a splashy press preview of a new car model surrounded by scantily dressed models and introduced by one of the Big Three CEOs. This year is a bit different. The show, officially named the North American International Auto Show, started with a speech by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. And rather than introduce a new car, LaHood applauded the car companies' early efforts to meet new and tougher fuel-economy standards championed by the administration—35.5 miles per gallon overall in their fleets by 2016.

The Motor City's gearheads aren't in the driver's seat anymore; government officials are. True, various congressional and administration representatives have dropped by the show in the past, but 2010 represents one of the largest, and most high profile, delegations. Besides LaHood, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Ed Montgomery, executive director of the White House Council for Automotive Communities and Workers, paid a visit to see what Detroit had to offer—and to justify its $81 billion investment in the industry to taxpayers. LaHood said the "exciting green rollouts wouldn't be possible without the administration's investment," while Pelosi, speaking at a lunch held during the show, said the loans were helping to trigger a "rebirth" in the industry, crucial to the nation's economic turnaround.

The show has a custom-ordered green flavor. An entire floor is devoted to the "Eco Experience," featuring cascading waterfalls amidst a serene scene of daffodils and abundant green trees, all placed on a lush green carpet. Just after Ford's hybrid Fusion was named Motor Trend's Car of the Year, Bill Ford promised his company would be a fuel-efficiency leader in every market. Toyota unveiled its next-generation Prius hybrid, a tiny concept car called the FT-CH, while GM showcased its electric Volt, due to go on sale later this year.

Domestic automakers "have to worry about what the government wants, and the government clearly wants these types of vehicles," says JohnWolkonowicz, automotive analyst for IHS Global Insight. "This is a different kind of show with a different kind of focus," adds Gerald C. Meyers, a professor at the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross School of Business. He says there is an indirect influence from both the government and Congress on auto designers and engineers to produce environmentally friendly cars. "Regulators are talking to companies, and companies are responding to regulators," he says. And there is a faction in Congress that believes that since two of the companies are owned by taxpayers, they need to "behave in a way that's favorable to the environmental movement," Meyers says.

Since green cars will cost more, the markets for them will be small—at least for the next 10 years, says John German, a program director at the International Council for Clean Transportation. The production of electric and hybrid vehicles that you can plug in is definitely being driven more by the government than by consumer demand, says Mike Omotoso, senior manager, global powertrain for J.D. Power and Associates. If the costs of these vehicles remain higher than their gasoline-powered counterparts and fuel prices stay relatively low, he says, they'll be slow to catch on. In fact, he predicts that, at least initially, the biggest purchasers will be government fleets, so the government will buy vehicles that they directly or indirectly paid to produce.

"There will be a dichotomy between what the government wants sold in the market to meet emissions and fuel-economy requirements and what the public wants," says Michael Robinet, vice president, global vehicle forecasts, for CSM Worldwide. Fuel-efficient cars, which may be pricier, smaller, and require additional functions like chargers for electric cars, will not be what the majority of Americans wants. Robinet says that could create a situation where dealers are forced to discount smaller cars to get consumers to buy the vehicles that the government wants them to manufacture, rubbing salt in the wounds of an already precarious financial situation for manufacturers. The government, he says, can't just order production of these vehicles and say, "Thou shalt drive a small car because it's good for you." It needs to find incentives to get people in them, namely through a gas tax or a tax rebate.

Still, automakers are bullish on their new rollouts. "We're not just doing this because the U.S. government said it's mandatory," says Kerry Christopher, a GM spokesman, who adds that many of these cars have been in the pipeline for at least eight years. He acknowledges that the company's viability plan included its intent to build vehicles with improved fuel efficiency that will help reduce dependence on foreign oil, but says the goal is in keeping with what consumers now crave. He points to a December 2009 sales figures that showed that Chevrolet car sales grew by 38.7 percent over last year, compared to only a 5 percent increase in trucks, as evidence that "people are looking to buy these fuel-efficient vehicles," and GM intends to provide a broad array of them. Maria Rohrer, GM's director of marketing for the Chevy Volt, says there's great enthusiasm for GM's electric car, even though it will retail for $40,000.

Sue Cischke, Ford's group vice president for sustainability, environment, and safety engineering, says it will take time for the costs of these vehicles to come down to a point where consumers will buy them. But fuel prices are bound to rise again, causing consumers to flock to these cars, she says. When that happens, automakers will be ready, and the administration will be cheering them on.

© 2010

________________________ ________________________ __________________

Doesnt this smack of Fascism? 

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2010, 08:49:38 AM »
Nope.  Not facist in the slightest.  I like the new GMC's the new Chevy's and the new Fords.  I think time will tell the reliability of them but at face value they are finally building cars to meet the peoples needs - fuel efficient, aesthetically pleasing and most importantly made by Americans.  I can't think of a better thing to rally around in this time of crisis.  Helping out American workers of an American product.
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39418
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2010, 09:03:07 AM »
Nope.  Not facist in the slightest.  I like the new GMC's the new Chevy's and the new Fords.  I think time will tell the reliability of them but at face value they are finally building cars to meet the peoples needs - fuel efficient, aesthetically pleasing and most importantly made by Americans.  I can't think of a better thing to rally around in this time of crisis.  Helping out American workers of an American product.

Hitler & Mussolini said the same thing KC. 


Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10]

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state,[11] with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality.[12] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[13] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[14] Fascism fashioned itself as the "complete opposite of Marxian socialism"[12] by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism.[12]

In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[15][16] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Italian fascist leader Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").[17][18] No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any such definition.[19]


kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2010, 09:12:20 AM »
Hitler & Mussolini said the same thing KC. 


Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10]

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state,[11] with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality.[12] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[13] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[14] Fascism fashioned itself as the "complete opposite of Marxian socialism"[12] by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism.[12]

In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[15][16] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Italian fascist leader Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").[17][18] No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any such definition.[19]



 ::) You're clutching at straws here 333. 
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39418
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2010, 09:14:13 AM »
::) You're clutching at straws here 333.  

Oh really KC?  What do you call Govt ownership and doctating to business what it should and can make?
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _________________

Economic policies of Fascism

 Fascists promoted their ideology as a "Third Position" between capitalism and communism.[128] Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.[129] Fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed "national corporatism", "national socialism" or "national syndicalism".[27] The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.[130]

Fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalise it.[131] They pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state or party-controlled.[132] Attempts were made by both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to establish "autarky" (self-sufficiency) through significant economic planning, but neither achieved economic self-sufficiency.[133]

[edit] National corporatism, national socialism and national syndicalism

Fascists supported the unifying of proletarian workers to their cause along corporatistic, socialistic, or syndicalistic lines, promoting the creation of a strong proletarian nation, but not a proletarian class.[134] Fascists were not hostile to the petite bourgeoisie or to small businesses, and promised these groups protection alongside the proletariat from the upper-class bourgeoisie, big business, and Marxism. The promotion of these groups is the source of the term 'extremism of the centre' to describe fascism.[135]

Fascism blamed capitalist liberal democracies for creating class conflict and communists for exploiting it.[14] In Italy, the Fascist period presided over the creation of the largest number of state-owned enterprises in Western Europe such as the nationalisation of petroleum companies into a single state enterprise called the Italian General Agency for Petroleum (Azienda Generale Italiani Petroli, AGIP).[136] Fascists made populist appeals to the middle class (especially the lower middle class) by promising to protect small business and small property owners from communism, and by promising an economy based on competition and profit while pledging to oppose big business.[135]

In 1933, Benito Mussolini declared Italian Fascism's opposition to "decadent capitalism" that he claimed prevailed in the world at the time, but did not denounce capitalism entirely. Mussolini claimed that capitalism had degenerated in three stages, starting with dynamic or heroic capitalism (1830–1870) followed by static capitalism (1870–1914) and then reaching its final form of decadent capitalism, also known as supercapitalism beginning in 1914.[49] Mussolini argued that Italian Fascism was in favour of dynamic and heroic capitalism for its contribution to industrialism and technical developments but claimed that it did not favour supercapitalism, which he claimed was incompatible with Italy's agricultural sector.[49]

Thus Mussolini claimed that Italy under Fascist rule was not capitalist in the modern use of the term, which referred to supercapitalism.[49] Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the "standardization of humankind" and for causing excessive consumption.[137] Mussolini claimed that at the stage of supercapitalism "[it] is then that a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously."[138] He saw Fascism as the next logical step to solve the problems of supercapitalism and claimed that this step could be seen either as a form of capitalism which involved state intervention, saying "our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation."[53]

Some fascists were indifferent or hostile to corporatism. The Nazis initially attempted to form a corporatist economic system like that in Fascist Italy, creating the National Socialist Institute for Corporatism in May 1933, which included many major economists who argued that corporatism was consistent with National Socialism.[139][140]. In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke enthusiastically about the "National Socialist corporative idea" as one which would eventually "take the place of ruinous class warfare"[141] However, the Nazis later viewed corporatism as detrimental to Germany and that it institutionalized and legitimized social differences within the German nation. Instead, the Nazis promoted economic organisation that emphasized the biological unity of the German national community.[142]

Hitler continued to refer to corporatism in propaganda, but it was not put into place, even though a number of Nazi officials such as Walther Darré, Gottfried Feder, Alfred Rosenburg, and Gregor Strasser were in favour of a neo-medievalist form of corporatism, as corporations had been influential in German people's history in the medieval era.[143]

Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera did not believe that corporatism was effective and denounced it as a propaganda ploy, saying "this stuff about the corporative state is another piece of windbaggery".[144]

[edit] Economic planning

Fascists opposed laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression.[145] After the Great Depression began, many people from across the political spectrum blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and communism.[146]

Fascists declared their opposition to finance capitalism, interest charging, and profiteering.[147] Nazis and other anti-Semitic fascists, considered finance capitalism a "parasitic" "Jewish conspiracy".[148] Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments.[citation needed] They introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic interventionist measures.[149]

Private property rights were supported, but were contingent upon service to the state.[150] For example, "an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labour than he would find profitable."[151] According to historian Tibor Ivan Berend, dirigisme was an inherent aspect of fascist economies.[152] The Labour Charter of 1927, promulgated by the Grand Council of Fascism, stated in article 7: "The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation", then goes on to say in article 9: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."[153]

Fascists thought that private property should be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual."[154] They also introduced price controls and other types of economic planning measures.[149]

Fascism had a Social Darwinist view of human relations.[155] They promoted the interests of successful businesses while banning trade unions and other workers' organizations.[156] Mussolini wrote approvingly of the notion that profits should not, for any purpose, be taken away from those who produce them from their own labour, saying "I do not respect — I even hate — those men that leech a tenth of the riches produced by others".[157]

[edit] Social welfare

Benito Mussolini promised a "social revolution" that would "remake" the Italian people. According to Patricia Knight, this was only achieved in part.[158] The people who primarily benefited from Italian fascist social policies were members of the middle and lower-middle classes, who filled jobs in the vastly expanding government workforce, which grew to about a million in 1930.[158] Health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, with welfare rising from seven percent of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940.[159]

A major social welfare initiative in Fascist Italy was the Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND) or "National After-work Program". Created in 1925, it was the state's largest recreational organisation for adults.[160] The Dopolavoro was responsible for establishing and maintaining 11,000 sports grounds, over 6,400 libraries, 800 movie houses, 1,200 theatres, and over 2,000 orchestras.[160] Membership of the Dopolavoro was voluntary, but it had high participation because of its nonpolitical nature.[160] It is estimated that, by 1936, the OND had organised 80 percent of salaried workers[161] and, by 1939, 40 percent of the industrial workforce. The sports activities proved popular with large numbers of workers. The OND had the largest membership of any of the mass Fascist organisations in Italy.[162]

The enormous success of the Dopolavoro in Fascist Italy was the key factor in Nazi Germany creating its own version of the Dopolavoro, the Kraft durch Freude (KdF) or "Strength through Joy" program of the Nazi government's German Labour Front, which was even more successful than the Dopolavoro.[163] KdF provided government-subsidized holidays for German workers.[164] KdF was also responsible for the creation of the original Volkswagen ("People's Car"), a state-manufactured automobile that was meant to be cheap enough to allow all German citizens to be able to own one.

While fascists promoted social welfare to ameliorate economic conditions affecting their nation or race as whole, they did not support social welfare for egalitarian reasons. Fascists criticised egalitarianism as preserving the weak. They promoted instead social Darwinist views, claiming that nations and races must preserve and promote their strengths to ensure survival in a world that is in a perpetual state of national and/or racial conflict and competition.[165][166] Adolf Hitler was opposed to egalitarian and universal social welfare because, in his view, it encouraged the preservation of the degenerate and feeble.[167] While in power, the Nazis created social welfare programs to deal with the large numbers of unemployed. However, those programs were neither egalitarian nor universal, but instead residual, excluding multiple minority groups and certain other people whom they felt were incapable of helping themselves, and who would pose a threat to the future health of the German people.[168]


kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2010, 11:36:09 AM »
Oh really KC?  What do you call Govt ownership and doctating to business what it should and can make?



So an economic depression/recession not seen since the 1930's that caused this bailout of the automakers (saving hundreds of thousands of jobs) is somehow a plan for facism dictated by Obama and the govt?  Give me a break.  Yes they have a say in what is being done because it's being paid for by tax payers.  If they were completely aloof you would comment on how they are 'owned' by the auto industry.  This isn't fascism in the slightest.  It's a follow through by the govt to ensure the companies they bailed out don't fu*k up again and end up going bankrupt, therefore wasting the money that was intended to bail them out.  My gosh you just don't seem to get simple reason at all. 
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39418
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2010, 11:42:23 AM »
So an economic depression/recession not seen since the 1930's that caused this bailout of the automakers (saving hundreds of thousands of jobs) is somehow a plan for facism dictated by Obama and the govt?  Give me a break.  Yes they have a say in what is being done because it's being paid for by tax payers.  If they were completely aloof you would comment on how they are 'owned' by the auto industry.  This isn't fascism in the slightest.  It's a follow through by the govt to ensure the companies they bailed out don't fu*k up again and end up going bankrupt, therefore wasting the money that was intended to bail them out.  My gosh you just don't seem to get simple reason at all. 

He KC - why should we even have bankruptcy laws in the first place?

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2010, 11:44:50 AM »
Elected leaders have no place running private enterprise through legislation and mandates.

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2010, 11:45:09 AM »
He KC - why should we even have bankruptcy laws in the first place?

Hey 333  - way to simplify a situation that required immediate action to stop what would have cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their jobs.

Abandon every hope...

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2010, 11:45:52 AM »
Elected leaders have no place running private enterprise through legislation and mandates.

But it's not private if they are majority shareholders.  It's more like a public run company with private minority share options. 
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39418
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2010, 11:49:53 AM »
Hey 333  - way to simplify a situation that required immediate action to stop what would have cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their jobs.



No, we have bankruptcy laws for a reason, and we should follow them.  These laws and principals are far older and much more thought out than your emotional need to feel like you are doing something helpful.  Failed companies need to fail for a reason.   

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2010, 11:55:22 AM »
No, we have bankruptcy laws for a reason, and we should follow them.  These laws and principals are far older and much more thought out than your emotional need to feel like you are doing something helpful.  Failed companies need to fail for a reason.   

In a perfect world yes.  But when hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake it's not as easy as 'let them fail because they deserve it'.  That would be political suicide firstly, and secondly would be a terribly heartless thing to do when you could in fact help.  Which the govt is and has done. 

Same thing with the banks, guess what? It's a tough pill to swallow but it needed to be done.  If they had failed because they deserved it, where exactly is the money for business, homes, personal finance going to come from? the sky? the govt? a new bank? It sucks but that's the reality of the situation.  It needed to be done, perhaps not with the excess 'pork' added on, but it needed to be done none the less.  Anyone, politician or otherwise, who says they wouldn't have done it is flat out lying. 
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39418
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2010, 12:54:59 PM »
In a perfect world yes.  But when hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake it's not as easy as 'let them fail because they deserve it'.  That would be political suicide firstly, and secondly would be a terribly heartless thing to do when you could in fact help.  Which the govt is and has done. 

Same thing with the banks, guess what? It's a tough pill to swallow but it needed to be done.  If they had failed because they deserved it, where exactly is the money for business, homes, personal finance going to come from? the sky? the govt? a new bank? It sucks but that's the reality of the situation.  It needed to be done, perhaps not with the excess 'pork' added on, but it needed to be done none the less.  Anyone, politician or otherwise, who says they wouldn't have done it is flat out lying. 

Watch this an learn.  Carlson's family has a dealership and gives a first hand account. 


kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2010, 12:58:51 PM »
Watch this an learn.  Carlson's family has a dealership and gives a first hand account. 



How can you agree with her when you were against the bailouts and without those it would have resulted in the same thing.  Loss of jobs. 
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39418
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2010, 01:12:34 PM »
How can you agree with her when you were against the bailouts and without those it would have resulted in the same thing.  Loss of jobs. 

Her dealership was making money.  Had GM gone into bankruptcy, someone else would have nought it up, just without the union weight around its ankles. 

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2010, 01:14:44 PM »
Her dealership was making money.  Had GM gone into bankruptcy, someone else would have nought it up, just without the union weight around its ankles. 

GM took the bail out money then filed for bankruptcy anyway
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39418
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2010, 01:26:22 PM »
GM took the bail out money then filed for bankruptcy anyway

I meant a traditional bankruptcy, not the sham that was put forth that left the company basically the same, just with taxpayers on the hook for the losses. 

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2010, 01:54:15 PM »
Her dealership was making money.  Had GM gone into bankruptcy, someone else would have nought it up, just without the union weight around its ankles. 

And they can't do this now? The contact was terminated so this is a win for them right? They are no longer GM and no longer have govt or union requests to deal with...unless of course they too wanted some bailout money.
Abandon every hope...

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: Guess who is REALLY running the auto companies in Detroit?
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2010, 04:34:10 PM »
I can't stand people who somehow think companies exist to benefit and support the working class.  Companies exist to make a profit and workers' prosperity depends entirely on that companies performance.  If you slave your life away for 30 years just for a retirement check that may or may not ever get paid if that company goes under (as any can) that is a result of piss poor planning on your part.  You choose to sell your labor to whom and for how much so if you're dependent on a failing company for money when you could have been dependent on your own investments, savings, or assetts then what the hell were you thinking?