Welcome to PatsFans.com

No Experience Necessary When Running GM

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by State, Jun 1, 2009.

  1. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,722
    Likes Received:
    175
    Ratings:
    +350 / 11 / -27

    Some might say new blood is needed, rather than the same old.. same old.. title is a tad disengenuous as he is not actually running GM..

    Aren't you one of the folks who advocate for giving qualified people a chance no matter their background, see the New Haven Firefighters???

    Situational ethics once again..
  3. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    The firefighters are, ahem, firefighters who took a fair test to be promoted. The town didn't like the results, fearing a lawsuit by black firefighters, so they threw them out. Ironically the whites (and one hispanic) still sued them.

    In the other case is a law student--who has never set foot inside a manufacturing plant--is 1) deciding on how GM should be run and most important 2) which parts of GM should stay running.

    Were educated at public schools or something? Jeez!
  4. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,992
    Likes Received:
    442
    Ratings:
    +1,117 / 8 / -7

    #75 Jersey

  5. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    They already have. Very recently--a day or so ago--Matt Drudge had the heading "Going, going..." showing a Yahoo graph of GM's stock price. It was an amazing nosedive, Mt. Okemo style.

    EDIT: If one wants to follow it, it's right here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GM
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2009
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,088
    Likes Received:
    212
    Ratings:
    +500 / 6 / -2

    What's that supposed to mean?
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,722
    Likes Received:
    175
    Ratings:
    +350 / 11 / -27

    As I said in the first post older men with plenty of experience f..ed this up big time.. give someone new an opportunity.. he is not actually running GM.. so your premise is wrong..
  8. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,992
    Likes Received:
    442
    Ratings:
    +1,117 / 8 / -7

    #75 Jersey


    In the big scheme of things, investors all over the world are voting with their money that the bankruptcy of GM and the Administration's plans for relaunching and subsequently selling it off are an improvement for the economy as a whole.

    Whether or not "State" is correct about the GM handling, the people with the money (judging from the market reaction today) obviously feel the opposite.

    Saying "Obamanomics is looking shakier and shakier all the time." is patentlt absurd on a day of 2%+ market gains all around and 64% favorability polls. Maybe it looks shaky in the eyes of a distinct and angry minority, but to the general public, not.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2009
  9. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    I completely agree that management and the UAW screwed the puppy. For example, management should NEVER have agreed to UAW demands in 1977 that a person be given a pension and medical for himself and his spouse after twenty years of employment regardless of age.

    So you have a lot of people collecting pensions for longer than they worked, which is crazy, driving up the so-called "legacy" costs to unsustainable levels.

    I know first hand that this has been a longstanding demand by the Teamsters at UPS, but UPS is a lot smarter than GM in drawing a line in the sand. At least on this issue.

    But where you err is the premise that by doing the opposite, bringing in inexperienced people, will be a boon.

    And the stock may be going up today...but it's still below a dollar--which proves my point, not Shmessy's. Can you believe that? Under a dollar.

    Meanwhile Apple, the computer I'm using, sells today for $139 a share.

    So, Shmessy, keep in mind it's 0.93 cents (GM) or $139 (Apple). It's called investors voting with their feet.

    That's largely because they're letting the company go bankrupt, which will enable them to undo some of the onerous labor contracts that they had stupidly agreed to.

    So there's some hope, because they've finally gone the bankruptcy route and the Chevy Volt, which has a lot of people excited. New technology right around the corner.

    So as an investor, why not go for GM stock? It's so low now, there's not much risk but a great deal of reward down the line.

    GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,722
    Likes Received:
    175
    Ratings:
    +350 / 11 / -27

    The only place that I have ever seen legacy costs discussed in the context of GM.. or any UAW Contract, not for any public or private employees... it takes two to negotiate a contract.

    The UAW and its folks did not design the cars, had little to say in how many were produced on and on.. they build what they are told to build.. decisions are made from higher ups..

    Times were changing and this traditional business model did not change all that much..

    But you continue to say this kid is running the show, he is not really running he is the gov't point man on dismantling it.. not quite the same as the management folks in the towers..
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,088
    Likes Received:
    212
    Ratings:
    +500 / 6 / -2

    So the markets being up today are reflective of the gubmits moves with GM? I'd call that a bit a of a stretch. The markets are up because they're coming off lows not scene in decades, and the economic data "isn't as bad" as they thought it would be. By not as bad, it means instead of a **** sandwich, the economy is serving **** salad.

    BTW, just as absurd, is pointing at a single day in the stock market as an validator of the merrits of long term economic policy. I won't even go near your mentioning public opinion polls. Seriously, public opinion polls Shmess? :confused2:
  12. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    Real World, stop making so much sense.

    Here's Neal Boortz's take: GM GOES BANKRUPT. I like how he calls our President the "looter in chief." So true.

    Makes me wish we had Mitt Romney as President. The company would likely have been in bankruptcy proceedings months ago, saving taxpayers billions.
  13. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,088
    Likes Received:
    212
    Ratings:
    +500 / 6 / -2

    Mitt Romney is a fraud, finger in the wind politician, but, he is arguably the only candidate in the 2008 election, that understood the intricacies, and issues, with the current economic/financial crisis. No one else in that bunch came close IMO (especially the zero experience president). That being said, I don't trust Romney at all. He'd have been checking the wind directions everyday, to see who he should let influence his decision making first. Again this is simply my personal opinion. I don't think Romney is a bad guy mind you, just as I don't think Obama is. I just think he's (Romney) a business man to the bone. I like executive experience, but core principles are just as important. Obama has the core principles (of which I don't agree), but zippo in the experience department, while Romney is the opposite. Obama's is a terrible mix. He passes policy according to his convictions, without an understanding of the fiscal cost (see George Bush). Scary stuff. Who called him George Bush on steroids in here? 2 cents to whomever it was.
  15. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,992
    Likes Received:
    442
    Ratings:
    +1,117 / 8 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    Whoa, whoa, whoa. I was NOT talking about GM's stock price (which I haven't even been watching).

    My point was about the markets in GENERAL. Obama is the President of the U.S. I could care less how GM's stock does - his performance is more related to how the general markets do over his eight years.
  16. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,992
    Likes Received:
    442
    Ratings:
    +1,117 / 8 / -7

    #75 Jersey

    You've seen me deride one day market move pronouncements here by others. I am in no way making a conclusion based on one day, one month or even one year ( I WILL judge based on eight years, however).


    I was responding to the OP's writing "Obamanomics is looking shakier and shakier all the time." Some day it MAY look shaky, but to make that absurd statement at this time given the evidence we see at this moment, is merely wishful thinking by the OP.
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,088
    Likes Received:
    212
    Ratings:
    +500 / 6 / -2

    So you responded to absurdity, with some absurdity of your own. No problem.
  18. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,992
    Likes Received:
    442
    Ratings:
    +1,117 / 8 / -7

    #75 Jersey


    Nope.

    I simply responded to the OP's statement of "Obamanomics is looking shakier and shakier all the time" with the CURRENT FACTS of the market direction and public opinion.

    You may feel the FACTS on the ground right now are absurd, but that's your problem. The facts are the facts. As I said earlier, it may change in the future, but the data manifestations CURRENTLY are (in the words of Belichick) "what they are".
  19. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Why argue with these people?
    They're maniacs who post the most worthless crap threads every single day, single-mindedly focused on their hatred for this half-Black President. Nevermind the fact that most of their criticisms make them look like absolute HYPOCRITES since they stayed silent for almost the same criticisms while under Bush.
  20. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    heh.........his performance has little to no effect on the market

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>