World Politics

[Anonymous]

Maybe in your fantasy world. Here in the real world the labor cost that goes into a GM car is about $2400, which is roughly 8% of the total vehicle cost. GM did not go bankrupt because of a few percent difference in production costs. They went bankrupt because they made crappy cars relative to the competition and have been doing so for forty years. They treated their customers with contempt. It has been a total management failure. They have steadily retreated for decades, gradually ceding different market segments to the imports until they were left at an Alamo of their own making, with the company reliant on trucks and large SUVs.

John DeLorean's book, "On a Clear Day You Can See GM," written in the early 70's, shows how incompetent GM's management was; and the situation never got better. Sure the UAW is greedy and their members lazy, but the union is not the reason why GM failed.

Ford brought in management from outside the auto industry, and they are the last man standing.

Nope, but nice try.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aCRwRYakxQSI&refer=us

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123853988781575499.html

"The GM bailout has become a political operation run out of the White House. It will stay that way. Talk of UAW layoffs already disguises the fact that UAW workers are actually offered generous buyouts and early retirement -- they aren't just sent away with a last paycheck. What about Chrysler? A few weeks ago, Fiat was saying it would consider a merger if a loan from Washington was guaranteed. Now Washington is saying a loan will be forthcoming as long as Fiat does a deal. That's not an ultimatum -- that's a nod and a wink.

Mr. Wagoner did more than any GM executive to deal with the cursed legacy of 75 years of too much government attention. Not for him, though, and not for Team Obama, the real solution to make GM "viable": Getting rid of its North American business to end its UAW captivity.

That captivity, imposed by the 1935 Wagner Act, is the sole relevant factor distinguishing the Detroit Three from the world's other auto makers. The result is downright weird: "Our" auto companies operate in a world that's less "American," in a sense, than the Japanese and German companies that come here and enjoy a free labor market.
The Wagner world was given a second lease on life by a peculiar feature of Congress's 1975 fuel economy law. Known as the "two fleets" rule, it effectively forces Detroit to make its cheap small cars in high-wage domestic UAW factories, even if it means losing money on every car. The rule has no fuel-economy function. Its only purpose is to shield the UAW monopoly inside each Detroit auto maker from global labor competition."

http://www.dailymarkets.com/stocks/2008/11/24/more-on-total-hourly-labor-costs-gm-vs-toyota/


"There’s also the “jobs bank,” a feature of the UAW contract that drew fire from senators, in which workers get 95% of their base pay and all of their benefits if they are laid off or their plant is closed. In the past, workers could stay in the jobs bank forever unless they turn down two job offers within 80 kilometres of their factory. GM’s new contract imposes a two-year time limit, and workers are out of the jobs bank if they turn down one job within 50 miles or four jobs anywhere in the country. GM has about 1,000 workers in the jobs bank now because it’s been thinned out by early retirement and buyout offers. At its peak, the jobs bank had 7,000 to 8,000 people, Sapienza said."

"Bottom Line: Even with the new contract, there will still be about a $14 per hour pay gap in total labor costs between GM and Toyota, and more than a 29% wage premium for UAW workers compared to their nonunion counterparts at Toyota."

What a great liberal idea... get paid 95% of what you normally make for not working. How very smart, in a pure business sense.


Ford, after Jaques Nasser, realized they overpaid for their acquisitions, particularly Volvo. When they started to lose money they knew they were in trouble and leveraged every asset and began shedding non-Ford brands. They still have enormous debt service and will never be the same company.

 

[BroDeal]

I was talking about us surrendering to the Nazi's since WWII killed so many as a result of "Empire Building"

Sure. Nice analogy. We all know that fighting conventional armies of millions is the same as asymetrical warfare against a few hundred. There is just so much from fighting the Nazis that can be applied to terrorism in the modern world. If much better to look to WWII instead of guerrilla conflicts. Of course, if we used guerrilla conflicts then we could not use the bogeyman of the Nazis.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

What a great liberal idea... get paid 95% of what you normally make for not working. How very smart, in a pure business sense.

How can I get a job like that - sure would allow for better training.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Sure. Nice analogy. We all know that fighting conventional armies of millions is the same as asymetrical warfare against a few hundred. There is just so much from fighting the Nazis that can be applied to terrorism in the modern world. If much better to look to WWII instead of guerrilla conflicts. Of course, if we used guerrilla conflicts then we could not use the bogeyman of the Nazis.

But yet Al Qaida has managed to kill nearly as many American civilians are Nazi Germany - of course they tell us they are just getting started.

Besides Obama seems to think that the few hundred is going to require at least 30,000 more troops (the military asked for more but he is wise like Solomon). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/02/officials-dispute-suggestion-afghanistan-surge-ordered-fight-al-qaeda/

 

[BroDeal]

Nope, but nice try.

blah blah blah.

(Typical spam from Scott.)

What part of percentages do you not understand? The total labor cost in an average domestic vehicle is 8% of the price. The difference between the domestics and the imports is about 3 - 4%. It does not matter if the companies were paying people to masturbate. It does not matter what they were doing. The percentages do not lie.

The domestic auto companies could not convince people to buy their vehicles, and it was not due to a 3% difference in price. People do not compariosn shop for cars the same way they shop for soup at the supermarket. Vehicles are not commodities. 3% is nothing if a vehicle compelling. The vehicles were not compelling. The quality was not as good as the Japanese autos, and the depreciation was horrendous.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

LOL. So now a handful of Al Queda are the Nazis, and there are only two possible choices, massive occupation of other countries' civilian populations or surrender. I guess I left out your third option: Nuking large numbers of civilians because a few terrorists may have come from the area.

I am just curious - why are you so set against surrendering? Seems like it would take us out of the Empire Building that you find so distasteful, and could be useful in allowing us to pay penance for past sins.

 

[Anonymous]

Who says they want nuclear weapons? The same paranoid crazies who said that Iraq had WMDs? Maybe the same group of liars who said that Iraq could attack Britain with WMDs in forty-five minutes?

Yep, Bill Clinton... paranoid crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs&feature=PlayList&p=310711130876A845&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME&feature=PlayList&p=310711130876A845&index=6&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

 

[BroDeal]

I am just curious - why are you so set against surrendering? Seems like it would take us out of the Empire Building that you find so distasteful, and could be useful in allowing us to pay penance for past sins.

I am just curious - why are you so dead set about using nuclear weapons to commit war crimes? Seems like it would eliminate the problem you find so distasteful of dealing with other people as though they have human rights since their populations would all be dead.

 

[BroDeal]

Yep, Bill Clinton... paranoid crazy.

Nope. Bill Clinton was an amoral scumbag. He was well aware of what he did and why he did it, since everything was a political calculation to him.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I am just curious - why are you so dead set about using nuclear weapons to commit war crimes? Seems like it would eliminate the problem you find so distasteful of dealing with other people as though they have human rights since their populations would all be dead.

Last I checked those people in the Twin Towers had human rights as well.

I did not say I was dead set on it - I just said that it is one way to avoid putting more troops in Afghanistan - otherwise we would be going in and out like a yo yo.

But you seem to be avoiding the question.

 

[Anonymous]

What part of percentages do you not understand? The total labor cost in an average domestic vehicle is 8% of the price. The difference between the domestics and the imports is about 3 - 4%. It does not matter if the companies were paying people to masturbate. It does not matter what they were doing. The percentages do not lie.

The domestic auto companies could not convince people to buy their vehicles, and it was not due to a 3% difference in price. People do not compariosn shop for cars the same way they shop for soup at the supermarket. Vehicles are not commodities. 3% is nothing if a vehicle compelling. The vehicles were not compelling. The quality was not as good as the Japanese autos, and the depreciation was horrendous.

Yes, it's clear you know nothing of running a business. Back when GM was profitable, care to guess what their gross margin, net margin and lagrgest single expense was?

You speak of 3% as if it's meaningless. I really don't know why I'm surprised.

 

[BroDeal]

Last I checked those people in the Twin Towers had human rights as well.

I did not say I was dead set on it - I just said that it is one way to avoid putting more troops in Afghanistan - otherwise we would be going in and out like a yo yo.

But you seem to be avoiding the question.

Why are you avoiding my question? Why don't you want to give the same human rights consideration to non-Americans? Why do you consider non-Americans a lesser form of life that can be killed and oppressed without concern?

 

[zhumin]

Flat in the well-being of

Flat in the well-being of
There is a saying: his own way to go, no matter how good people can only walk a accompany you to rely on their own course in life ... ... Although there are some sad but the truth of life.

Life on the road, there are many waves, maybe it will not pay attention to sleep in an ocean, never wake up without hair. Memories of the past, but we have little self-righteous think they get rid of the charming memories of pain and growth in the future, giving up one after another good opportunity.
Some people said to me: past lives of the 500 times Looking back, in exchange for a pass by Jinsheng. Then we encounter it? Not that what life's miracle? Past lives of so many Looking back, only this life in exchange for our hard-won. Therefore, to thank ... ...
Others say: Since the know this life is not easy to be properly valued, the past last years.
Yes ah we can not stop the pace of the future, what then? Cherish the bar!
Thank you, my bicycle and JAGGAD riding clothes. When lonely, sad, bad mood, I have put a lot of secrets that you listen to, thank you, thank you, talk to me patiently. Only you have been accompanied on my side.

Flat in the well-being,
Can be fed after the small satisfaction
Can be done after a small sense of accomplishment,
Can determine their own way to go, the little pride,
Can also be due to anything but crying because of a sense of loss,
The plight of a tiny, that is flat in the well-being ... ...

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Why are you avoiding my question? Why don't you want to give the same human rights consideration to non-Americans? Why do you consider non-Americans a lesser form of life that can be killed and oppressed without concern?

Because, as an American who has family at risk from a terrorist bombing, I put them ahead of those who are supporting the people trying to kill my family.

Still no answer from you about surrender.

 

[Anonymous]

Nope. Bill Clinton was an amoral scumbag. He was well aware of what he did and why he did it, since everything was a political calculation to him.

So was he lying about Iraqi WMD? You realize Hillary, John Kerry and others said it too, right?

Oh, I get it. It's only a lie whe GWB, Cheney or Rumsfeld says it.

 

[Anonymous]

How can I get a job like that - sure would allow for better training.

BroDeal says labor costs don't matter. GM can pay people to maturbate, it makes no difference. His words, not mine.

So you could be in the UAW get paid 95% of $73.00 per hour to masturbate (and not work). Now I get the 'live better work union' bumper sticker.

 

[BroDeal]

Yes, it's clear you know nothing of running a business. Back when GM was profitable, care to guess what their gross margin, net margin and lagrgest single expense was?

You speak of 3% as if it's meaningless. I really don't know why I'm surprised.

What is clear is that you have no clue about running a business because all you can do is point to extraordinary situations like the jobs bank without figuring out what the overall effect on labor costs it made. Complicated business are complicated. No one gets everything they want. Labor negotiations are tricky. Often concessions have to be made to obtain other, more important needs.

The UAW did not force GM not to invest in fuel efficient vehicles when gasoline costs were cheap and they were making money hand over fist during the SUV craze. Members of GM's management publicly laughed at the Prius when it showed up on American shores. Now it is a top ten selling vehicle. Maybe that shoud not a big surprise when Bob Lutz was quoted as saying "global warming is a crock of shit." Global warming or not, a smart policy would have been to have a vehicle mix that could survive higher oil prices.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

BroDeal says labor costs don't matter. GM can pay people to maturbate, it makes no difference. His words, not mine.

So you could be in the UAW get paid 95% of $73.00 per hour to masturbate (and not work). Now I get the 'live better work union' bumper sticker.

I guess then all I would need is to find out where you get all of those great pictures from the Babes on Bikes and I would be set for life.

 

[BroDeal]

So was he lying about Iraqi WMD? You realize Hillary, John Kerry and others said it too, right?

You mean what they said after being provided with a pack of lies from the Bush administration??

 

[Anonymous]

What is clear is that you have no clue about running a business because all you can do is point to extraordinary situations like the jobs bank without figuring out what the overall effect on labor costs it made. Complicated business are complicated. No one gets everything they want. Labor negotiations are tricky. Often concessions have to be made to obtain other, more important needs.

The UAW did not force GM not to invest in fuel efficient vehicles when gasoline costs were cheap and they were making money hand over fist during the SUV craze. Members of GM's management publicly laughed at the Prius when it showed up on American shores. Now it is a top ten selling vehicle. Maybe that shoud not a big surprise when Bob Lutz was quoted as saying "global warming is a crock of shit." Global warming or not, a smart policy would have been to have a vehicle mix that could survive higher oil prices.

You are dancing. I'll ask again, back when GM was profitable, care to guess what their gross margin, net margin and lagrgest single expense was?

You speak of 3% as if it's meaningless.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

What is clear is that you have no clue about running a business because all you can do is point to extraordinary situations like the jobs bank without figuring out what the overall effect on labor costs it made. Complicated business are complicated. No one gets everything they want. Labor negotiations are tricky. Often concessions have to be made to obtain other, more important needs.

Judging from the posts I have read - my money is that SoCal has a little bit more experience in business

 

[BroDeal]

Because, as an American who has family at risk from a terrorist bombing, I put them ahead of those who are supporting the people trying to kill my family.

So you admit that you consider non-Americans a lesser form of life and want to kill them. And you wonder why they want to return the favor and kill you??

 

[Anonymous]

You mean what they said after being provided with a pack of lies from the Bush administration??

Nope, Bill was the president before GWB.

You didn't watch the videos. That's not surprising.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You mean what they said after being provided with a pack of lies from the Bush administration??

Another liberal claim bites the dust

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html

 

[CentralCaliBike]

So you admit that you consider non-Americans a lesser form of life and want to kill them. And you wonder why they want to return the favor and kill you??

Yep - that is war. Still going to favor the family on this though - you can give yours up if you want (unless you would rather surrender).