PDA

View Full Version : gm ceo dumped by white house


DUMBO
03-30-2009, 08:08 AM
have to admit i'm not much of a student of the US economy, but have you ever heard of the white house firing a private sector officer?

what do you think will be the impact with Chrystler fails?

sorry i didn't put this in KTL but, honestly, shit is fully retarded in there.

DUMBO
03-30-2009, 03:07 PM
bump.

whitey
03-30-2009, 04:40 PM
obama administration said it didnt look like the companies were doing enough to restructure and hence make themselves financial viable considering the massive amounts of tax dollars they are getting.

they felt gm needed to go in another direction.

they have also asked chrysler to form some sort of partnership with the italian car company fiat, which has been done. i think will be beneficial to both companies.

the administration does not want the american auto companies to fail by any means. but the path that they were on was to self destructive, and they were not doing enough to make themselves look viable in the future.


they really need to restructure the cars they are making. fuck suvs and big trucks for people other than ones who need it for work. they need to be making smaller more gas efficent models along with electric and hybrid automobiles. plus trying develope cars really looking down the line that can be incredibly efficeint and relativley harmless to the enviornment.

whitey
03-30-2009, 04:50 PM
BqqtJpfZElQ

too bad we all cant get one of these.

Jutzu-Lo-Killer
03-30-2009, 04:59 PM
Bump on

Uncle Steezo
03-30-2009, 05:07 PM
the way i see it is, we own them muhfukkas like shareholders.

which would have been a great solution.

our tax dollars equal shares in the company. as they economy recovers our stocks go up and then they buy our shares back.



STYLE for prez 2012.

TSA
03-30-2009, 05:12 PM
^co-sign.
it comes with all the money they just recently took and shares the gov bought. It legally gives him the power to do so.
i like how obama puts need before ideology.

Uncle Steezo
03-30-2009, 05:57 PM
its business investment basics.
i went after investors that would not be all up in my face every day askin "so hows my $XXX doin?" but they still have a vested interest in the success of my business so they have the right to suggest, opppose and support certain moves i make.

i'm sure i would be out of business if i bought a new car an a closet full of furs and gucci. or decided i was gonna sell tv antennas.

DUMBO
03-30-2009, 06:08 PM
I agree. and what's more, it shows how serious obama is because he was willing to make a choice that he knew would not show well against those who accuse him of being a socialist.

Uncle Steezo
03-30-2009, 06:36 PM
the socialist talk is a front.
we have been a socialist nation for a long time.
social security is a socialist policy.
along with health care, federal college grants, WIC, foodstamps and housing subsidies.

DUMBO
03-30-2009, 07:16 PM
whenever i get into disputes with free market ideologues i always suggest that the real capitalist economy only absorbs a small majority of labour. that is, you remove state spending - in the form of the military and its linkages, civil servants, and nonprofits living on the state coffers - and you have probably close to 30% unemployment. this is even more remarkable when you add the large numbers of unemployed people who are explicitly deriving their income from government spending.

capitalism has never achieved anywhere close to full employment.

whitey
03-30-2009, 08:10 PM
^no doubt. not a chance it would happen.

unregulated pure capitalism would pay people as little as possible.

the fact that we have laws protecting workers is a bit socialist.


the only time socialist talk comes up is when faggot republics try and scare dumbass rednecks into thinking were turning into a bunch of commies.


northern scandinavian countries have very large social programs, pay high taxes, yet are some of the most happy people in the world. money beyond a certain level becomes a poison, a corrupter. and its the people most threatened to lose that massive money that complain about it (rich republicans). but dumbass sheep republicans just follow along because they think those people actually have their best interests at heart.

HANZO
03-30-2009, 08:44 PM
so why aint he taking down the CEO's of the banks whose fuck ups cost the US economy more than the Auto industry did.

and whatever happens to GM and Chrysler they are doomed from now on. If Mercedes could not save Chrysler no one can.

DUMBO
03-30-2009, 08:52 PM
it is true that other ceos have gotten off relatively easily, but it's not like the president makes a habit of firing ceos. anyways, it is true the financial sector gets of easy.

they run tings. they're the puppetmasters.

whitey
03-30-2009, 09:25 PM
so why aint he taking down the CEO's of the banks whose fuck ups cost the US economy more than the Auto industry did.

and whatever happens to GM and Chrysler they are doomed from now on. If Mercedes could not save Chrysler no one can.


the car ceo's just mad poor decisions that made their company shit the bed within their industry. they hurt their employees because of it, but it wasn't really reckless. they just couldnt foresee possible problems or didnt think they would seriously be affected in the way that they were.

the banks got involved in some shiesty borderline illegal shit that seriously damaged our economy, and in turn the worlds.

whitey
03-30-2009, 09:30 PM
and on the second part, i think all the american auto companies can bounce back. they just need to restructure like obama is calling for.


you cant pay some jackass $80 an hour who doesnt do shit but gets that wage because hes in a union. they just cant let that happen. and the unions need to get off their high horse and realize that shit because none of them will have a job, instead of them just having a job that pays less.

they need to be more efficent in making cars. they need to make cars that people want in the future. gas is only going to go up from here. i dont know anyone that looks forward to putting $100 bucks in their gas tank. im glad i bought car where $20 fills my tank at 2.00 a gallon. and its not an american car.

realization that the old way of doing things wont work and that its a different world is the first step for them.

Robert
03-31-2009, 12:11 AM
I don't know enough about the situation in the states but some 'libertarian' told me he thought that it would be better to do nothing instead of implementing a stimulus package and the economy will sort itself out over time.

Is this a credible point or not?

TSA
03-31-2009, 01:21 AM
^ahahaha!
Libertarians=KTL posters.

no joke.

BUT, he has a point. Yes the economy will sort it's self out and its not natural for a country like the US at this stage of development to be hording on to industries for middle income or developing nations in asia


but the fact remains that cities a built around these industries, and if they collapse we can see an increase in detriotness (the asshole of america)


plus theres a cultural attachment to car production

I think they should leave cars alone and focus else where.

Japan used to make clothes ya know.
now they're making robots that rape japanese bitches for clothes.
and on the second part, i think all the american auto companies can bounce back. they just need to restructure like obama is calling for.


you cant pay some jackass $80 an hour who doesnt do shit but gets that wage because hes in a union. they just cant let that happen. and the unions need to get off their high horse and realize that shit because none of them will have a job, instead of them just having a job that pays less.

they need to be more efficent in making cars. they need to make cars that people want in the future. gas is only going to go up from here. i dont know anyone that looks forward to putting $100 bucks in their gas tank. im glad i bought car where $20 fills my tank at 2.00 a gallon. and its not an american car.

realization that the old way of doing things wont work and that its a different world is the first step for them.
it isn't labor

it's the fact that owning and running a company, let alone a MASSIVE industry of scale in the US is expensive and risky beyond reasonable measure.

labor costs are only like a single digit percent of total production costs counting CEOS and shit from something i saw on the news.

its the regulation, high cost of maintainance expansion and upstart and the fact that everything it takes to make and run a factory is now almost always imported thus naturally making it more expensive then the place you bought it from, so what's the use importing it here when you can build there.

DUMBO
03-31-2009, 03:31 AM
I don't know enough about the situation in the states but some 'libertarian' told me he thought that it would be better to do nothing instead of implementing a stimulus package and the economy will sort itself out over time.

Is this a credible point or not?

not in the known universe, it's a narrow ideological point imo. one thing is true by doing nothing, the businesses would like fail, which may indeed be their necessary future. but libertarians think that the economy will balance out in a way that is generally beneficial to all in society. this is because the correct prices of goods and services will signal efficient production and consumption.

however, these guys, incl. their intellectual leaders like Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, have never been able to explain how economies will be able to rebound from recessions/depressions without state spending or imperial means, and they have never given a sufficient answer to the hidden and underemployment problem of existing capitalist economies. they just repeat that, at a certain point, used resources (incl. the unemployed) will be very attractive to capitalists and will be thus utilised. the problem is that if no one is buying anything, capitalists will not be able to realize these 'potential' profits and will not have the capital to expand production. Nevermind, that the "at a certain point" is likely around 90% global unemployment.

the evidence for this criticism of the neoliberals is obvious: it's called 'The Third World' - high unemployment, low wages, and yet capital is not even close to flooding in. in fact, analyses of capital investment indicate that most capital flows go between already rich industrial/post-industrial states.

^ahahaha!
Libertarians=KTL posters.

no joke.

BUT, he has a point. Yes the economy will sort it's self out and its not natural for a country like the US at this stage of development to be hording on to industries for middle income or developing nations in asia


but the fact remains that cities a built around these industries, and if they collapse we can see an increase in detriotness (the asshole of america)


plus theres a cultural attachment to car production

I think they should leave cars alone and focus else where.

Japan used to make clothes ya know.
now they're making robots that rape japanese bitches for clothes.

it isn't labor

it's the fact that owning and running a company, let alone a MASSIVE industry of scale in the US is expensive and risky beyond reasonable measure.

labor costs are only like a single digit percent of total production costs counting CEOS and shit from something i saw on the news.

its the regulation, high cost of maintainance expansion and upstart and the fact that everything it takes to make and run a factory is now almost always imported thus naturally making it more expensive then the place you bought it from, so what's the use importing it here when you can build there.

it is labor, maybe not immediate labor costs, but certainly 'legacy costs' which are the automakers payments to retirees. i think it was once put that GM and the other US automakers are the largest healthcare companies that build cars in the world, or something like that. seems really fucked, when it was put that way.

whitey
03-31-2009, 06:40 AM
I don't know enough about the situation in the states but some 'libertarian' told me he thought that it would be better to do nothing instead of implementing a stimulus package and the economy will sort itself out over time.

Is this a credible point or not?


yea in the grand scheme of things it might and probably eventually would sort it self out. its just the in between time that is the problem, if an industry crashes here it opens it up to starting up some other place cheaper in another place in the world. however go tell a bunch of americans with high standards of living that as they lose there jobs and houses ect. when they are used to a high standard of living. and an even bigger problem for american politicians who would be having to deal with massive job losses and increasingly unhappy voters and hence have their asses being on the line.

whitey
03-31-2009, 06:42 AM
^ahahaha!
Libertarians=KTL posters.

no joke.

BUT, he has a point. Yes the economy will sort it's self out and its not natural for a country like the US at this stage of development to be hording on to industries for middle income or developing nations in asia


but the fact remains that cities a built around these industries, and if they collapse we can see an increase in detriotness (the asshole of america)


plus theres a cultural attachment to car production

I think they should leave cars alone and focus else where.

Japan used to make clothes ya know.
now they're making robots that rape japanese bitches for clothes.

it isn't labor

it's the fact that owning and running a company, let alone a MASSIVE industry of scale in the US is expensive and risky beyond reasonable measure.

labor costs are only like a single digit percent of total production costs counting CEOS and shit from something i saw on the news.

its the regulation, high cost of maintainance expansion and upstart and the fact that everything it takes to make and run a factory is now almost always imported thus naturally making it more expensive then the place you bought it from, so what's the use importing it here when you can build there.


other countries that would take it over dont pay their workers shit. dont offer them good benefits and have lax business restrictions. thats the difference.

Longbongcilvaringz
03-31-2009, 08:03 AM
The economy can't self regulate if there is already regulation (if you know what i mean).

Saying the market should self regulate is easy, and yes, the actions of the US government do in some way reward inefficient market participants. However, crises such as the current one are the result of under regulation.

A hybrid system is the only way to succeed. It is proven that a pure free market isn't feasible and neither is a state economy.

blah, i hate cunts.

snapple
03-31-2009, 08:32 AM
news made me real happy...

especially cause i was not happy to hear obama is sending more troops over-seas....


its common sense....the man needed to go....motherfucker flew his private jet to court or whatever lol.....

obama made a ballsy move....but i like it and support it.... it really cant get any worse....can it?

whitey
03-31-2009, 08:37 AM
news made me real happy...

especially cause i was not happy to hear obama is sending more troops over-seas....


its common sense....the man needed to go....motherfucker flew his private jet to court or whatever lol.....

obama made a ballsy move....but i like it and support it.... it really cant get any worse....can it?


Afghanistan needs em, no way around it. we should have been involved there, and there alone, from the beginning, with a much better plan than was originally hatched.

snapple
03-31-2009, 08:40 AM
^^i kno we are already in this....i kno the conflict and the dynamic of the situation....

but i have a lot of peers and some fam in the service the entire situation just sucks ya kno.... plus how much we spend everyday fighting these wars?...