backtop


Print 148 comment(s) - last by hashish2020.. on Dec 22 at 8:51 PM


One of the key obstacles to the bailout bill passing is that Senate Democrats are demanding Cerebus Capital -- Chrysler's owners -- to be held responsible for repaying tax payers if Chrysler goes out of business. The Bush administration opposes this provision saying Cerebus should not be held responsible.  (Source: Windsor Star)
No leadership change is among many deal-breakers that could kill the bailout says the President elect

President-elect Barack Obama is already looking to have a major impact on the tech industry, pushing internet privacy laws and initiatives that would prevent bandwidth caps and open white space.  Now he may have an even bigger impact on U.S. automakers.

Barack Obama joined those critical of GM, Ford, and Chrysler's key management, saying that top U.S. auto executives should resign for poor management of their companies.  While a strong supporter of the bailout bill, President-elect Obama has repeatedly stated that there is a need for major change in the U.S. automakers business plan.  He voiced his suggestion that the executives resign on "Meet the Press".

Congressional Democrat, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and friend of the President-elect, filled in the blanks saying that Rick Wagoner, the chief executive of General Motors Corp, had to "move on".  Sen. Dodd made the statement when speaking on "Face the Nation".

The criticism brings an intriguing question -- the Big Three's auto executives have said that they would do anything to get a bailout, even cutting their salaries to $1/year, but would they forfeit their job entirely to save their companies?  Surely this is an unsettling question to Mr. Wagoner and others, but it may be one that they must face, as Congressional pressure mounts, particularly if they want a long term bailout.

A shorter term $15B USD bailout bill that would help keep GM and Chrysler in business is close to passing, as the Bush administration and the Democratic congress have reached an apparent compromise.  However, key obstacles remain that could prevent it from passing entirely.

One key argument is that Democrats want to be able to pursue Chrysler's owners Cerebus if the company still goes under and defaults on the bailout loan.  The Bush administration opposes this.

The second sticking point is that Democrats want to forbid car companies from suing their states over emissions standards.  The Bush administration opposes this provision as well.  A senior administration official stated, "My expectation is that provision will not be in the bill when it comes to the floor, and if it is in there when the bill comes to the floor, my expectation is the bill will not succeed."

If the bailout does pass, the car companies will be under strict surveillance.  A new "car czar" will be appointed and any expenditure over $100M USD will have to be government approved.  Further, the companies will have to submit a plan to repay their loans, and if they fail to do so the car czar will submit their own plan for them; and the car czar's plan could include bankruptcy.  



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Car Czar? Ugh.
By King of Heroes on 12/10/2008 10:23:47 AM , Rating: 3
I guess I kind of see the point. The 'Big 3' executives let things crash and burn, so obviously they can't be trusted to run things anymore. Having a universal overseer shining a light on them and (ideally) keeping them honest is a good way of making sure this doesn't happen again...

But...I always thought that in a free market society, where the government has no oversight over the actions of private companies, isn't letting a failing business crash and burn kind of important? Unless I'm getting the definition of 'free market' completely wrong (which I might be).

If a company fails, it deserves to fail. Yes, thats horrible for the thousands of workers who will now be unemployeed, but thats simply how the free market should work. Its supposed to be cuttthroat. You're supposed to put the survivability of the company before your own personal greed. If you don't, it dies, and you've just screwed over thousands of hard working people because you couldn't see past your own luxury. Ideally, another more competent company will buy it out and at least some people can keep their jobs.

If the government just keeps walking in and handing a giant paycheck to any private company thats in trouble, then what is the point? Private companies will bitch if the government starts telling them what to do (such as Comcast telling the FCC to go fuck itself over its traffic shaping and P2P blocking practices). Yet they're perfectly content with begging the government for giant amounts of money when they're in trouble.




RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By sweetsauce on 12/10/2008 10:31:42 AM , Rating: 3
The "free market" only applies when a company like walmart opens up in a town and destroys its local economy. Too bad for the little guys, the "market" has spoken. right? But, when a company like walmart gets in trouble, then we need to bail them out because there is no one left that can fill the void. If they go under then were all doomed DOOOOOOOMED!!!

This is American Capitalism in a nutshell: Capitalism as long as it protect the big corporations and keeps feeding them profits, which in turn gives them more money to hire more lobbyist, which in turn creates more kickbacks for politicians, who in turn create loopholes and protections for the big corporations, who in turn make more profit and the THE GREAT CIRCLE OF ECONOMIC LIFE keeps going.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Gzus666 on 12/10/2008 10:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
To quote the random foreign guy from Family Guy, "Is funny cause it's true".


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 10:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "free market" only applies when a company like walmart opens up in a town and destroys its local economy.


Thats such a load of bullcrap and I'm getting tired of reading it on here. Show me ONE local economy thats been " destroyed ".

I live in a pretty small city. We never had a Wal Mart until this year. Our local economy was most certainly NOT " destroyed ".

quote:
But, when a company like walmart gets in trouble, then we need to bail them out because there is no one left that can fill the void. If they go under then were all doomed DOOOOOOOMED!!!


Most Americans, as far as any poll can determine, don't agree with bailing out the big 3 or the banks either.

quote:
This is American Capitalism in a nutshell


Since when was Congressional bailouts typical of American Capitalism ? Bailouts go AGAINST market forces.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By DigitalFreak on 12/10/2008 11:02:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We never had a Wal Mart until this year. Our local economy was most certainly NOT " destroyed ".


So Walmart just opened a store in your town this year, and the economy wasn't destroyed? Silly rabbit.

Get back to me in a couple more years when the mom and pop shops finally give up fighting.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 11:04:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Get back to me in a couple more years when the mom and pop shops finally give up fighting.


Mom and pop shops haven't driven local economies since the 1960's. There will be NO destructive backlash here, or anywhere, because a Wal-Mart came here.

Wal-Mart typically "hurts" grocery stores the most. Which are NATIONAL CHAINS, and NOT local " mom and pop " stores.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By MozeeToby on 12/10/2008 11:34:35 AM , Rating: 1
Not every grocery store is part of a national chain. In my home town area, each little town (<5000 people) had a locally owned IGA and the bigger town (~35000) in the area had a Festival Foods (there exist about 7 of these total).

A Super-Wallmart opened up... oh, about 8 years ago. Every IGA within 40 miles of it has either gone out of business or changed owners so many times only an idiot would think they're profitable. The Festival Foods only survives because the store is clean, the produce and meat are fresh and their prices are nearly comparable.

I used to work there and I can tell you that the profit margins at the store hover around 1.2%. That means that if some kid steels a twix, you have to sell $100 worth of product just to make back the difference.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 11:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm still waiting to hear how this " destroyed " the local economy though.

Truth is the Wal-Mart boosted your local economy. Its simply economics.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By whirabomber on 12/10/2008 12:01:17 PM , Rating: 3
Not unless Wal-Mart came in, told your local mini-factory to sell them their widgets at $X or Wal-Mart would stop carrying them. Your widget factory couldn't possibly meet the $X demand and as opposed to cutting back on their mercedes a year lifestyle, the owners just move the factory to China to afford the $X per unit demand. That is the other way Wal-Mart kills local economies.

I simply don't go to walmart unless I absolutely have to. I am a Meijer's fan.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Fireshade on 12/10/2008 12:06:32 PM , Rating: 3
Just wait and see how it will affect the local economy if Walmart decides to cut jobs in a nationwide reorganisation.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By MozeeToby on 12/10/2008 12:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
How about the people that now have to drive 40 miles every time they need groceries, including during the not so pleasent northern winters? How about the people that worked at the local grocery stores in the small towns that now either don't have work or need to drive 40 miles to get it?

Besides, elimating the compitition is bad for the economy. Since Wallmart moved in, the number of grocery stores in the 40 mile radius has dropped from 15+ to 2. It has dropped tax revenue in all the small towns and counties that no longer have a simple grocery store. Also, it has reduced the number of people with decent pay and benifits since it fires any employee who so much as mutters the word 'union'.

You don't seem to realize how fragile small town economies are. Many have only a handful of businesses and all are tightly intertwined. When every family needs to make a weekly trip to Wallmart for groceries, they may as well pick up gas, clothes, farm equipment, and everything else there while they're at it. Stuff that they would have picked up from local shops if they hadn't already made the trip.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 12:28:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When every family needs to make a weekly trip to Wallmart for groceries, they may as well pick up gas, clothes, farm equipment, and everything else there while they're at it. Stuff that they would have picked up from local shops if they hadn't already made the trip.
And that's a conscious decision those families are making to support Walmart and not their small town's businesses.

People's hatred of Walmart is, and always has been, misplaced. Walmart doesn't force people to shop at its stores, and it doesn't take money from other companies. Consumers make the choice to shop at Walmart (for any number of reasons) which results in less money for the competition. Blame the residents of your small town, not Walmart.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By FITCamaro on 12/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 12:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
lol dude where in the HELL is there ever only one place to buy groceries from ?

I mean reasonably. Not some Alaskan town where the population is 100.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
In many areas of the country. Unless you expect people to drive a few hours for groceries. Have you never driven through the middle of nowhere where you drive for an hour, come upon a small town where all there is is a Walmart, a Home Depot, a gas station, and couple fast food joints, and then its another hour at least before you hit a small town?

Wake up man. In some places, all there is is Walmart.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 12:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of a car ???

Seriously I moved here to freaking Fort Mill South Carolina 20 years ago. We had COW FARMS and our biggest draw was local peaches and strawberries. Don't preach to me about living in the country. And even THEN, we had 4 grocery stores to choose from.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Suntan on 12/10/2008 1:32:18 PM , Rating: 3
I’m sorry, but this is a load of craap. I grew up in rural Iowa, my home town (and 90% of the towns in a hundred mile radius) had a lower population than most Wal Mart stores on an average Saturday afternoon. They had 3 small stores within “normal” driving range to choose from and at least 15 to 20 within a 40 mile radius.

I’ve traveled extensively and been to every state except Hawaii. In all my travels of this country, I have never come across a region (and I have been to a lot of very remote regions) where your only two choices are Wal Mart or starve.

If you want to argue that Wal Mart is a pox on the small town, that’s fine. But use realistic arguments instead of this silly idea that people will die if they don’t shop at Wal Mart.

-Suntan


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 12:45:44 PM , Rating: 3
It's not the only place to get groceries, it's the most convenient place to get groceries. First of all, there was likely some grocery store people went to before Walmart built it's store. If that store went out of business, again the fault is on the consumers. That store may still be in business, but is further away (maybe even in a different town). Whatever the case may be, there are alternatives. Individuals can grow many of their own fruits/vegetables, bake their own bread, buy meat from a local farmer, etc. They can drive to the next town over, or grab as many groceries as possible from the local gas station, or convenience store. However, all of these options are much less convenient than driving to Walmart and picking everything up there. But please don't claim Walmart is the only option, because that's just not true.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By fflintstone on 12/10/2008 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, actually, the local stores would often be closer and more convenient than the regional Walmart. However, once Walmart comes in and undercuts the prices of all of those local businesses, it doesn't take long for the local businesses to disappear. Customers make self-interest economic decisions which result in the small local businesses becoming non-profitable. Once the local businesses are gone, there is no longer a choice. "Convenience" is not in play any more as Walmart is the only option. Furthermore, the local economy is damaged to at least some extent because all of the people who used to work for the local businesses must now find other work -- and often the only thing available is at Walmart making less than they made before.

The real killer for small towns comes later. After a few years of dominance, Walmart sees that its store is no longer sufficiently profitable (which might or might not be caused by the store's own effect on the local economy) and they close it. Now the locals are completely screwed until or unless local businesses can be reestablished.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 2:00:43 PM , Rating: 3
None of the things you just stated are Walmart's (or any other business's, for that matter) fault!! The consumer decides who succeeds, and who fails. I don't understand why this is so damn hard for people to understand. I think people just want someone else to blame; they want a scapegoat. It's a lot harder to accept that you, or your neighbors are to blame.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 12:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not letting unions in is one of the few things I respect Walmart for.

I don't shop there either though unless I have to.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By bhieb on 12/10/2008 1:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
I respect that they have a company motto of "lowest price for our customer", and they do whatever they can to stand by that. The reason why no competitor to Wal-mart exists is that none can. It would be one thing if WM moved in and force the local store out of business, then jacked the prices back up. They don't, they are committed to offering the lowest price, and hold their suppliers to the flames to do so. Argue that it compromises quality, but not that they Destroy the local economy. If anything they boost it, the community now goes to one location and spends less for the same goods. How is that not good for the consumer?

What I find perplexing is that you FIT argue against them. I have seen you post many pro-capitalism posts. Wal-mart is the natural evolution of capitalism. They are the most efficient company at providing their goods/services. The very definition of capitalism dictates that they would rise to be the only supplier. If they abused this position it would be one thing, but even where competition does exist they are still the best value.

I think the WM and MS haters of the world dislike them because it shows the "dark side" of true free market capitalism. Inevitably the most efficient company will rise to the top surpassing all others. The darkest problem is that once that happens no one can quickly fill the void if they abuse the position, or go out of business. It is the risk of free market capitalism.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 8:08:05 AM , Rating: 2
In the end I don't hate Walmart. I hate the people who shop at Walmart. People who care about price only. With no regard to quality.

I think the South Park Walmart episode captured it perfectly.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By eyebeeemmpawn on 12/10/2008 12:17:37 PM , Rating: 1
while claims that Walmart will destroy the local economy are extreme, Walmart is a leech on the whole country.

http://southernstudies.org/2005/03/taxpayers-pay-f...

Walmart lowers the standard of living for its employees, and the rest of us pay for their health care benefits.

quote:
Truth is the Wal-Mart boosted your local economy. Its simply economics.


I'm not sure how you think Walmart has boosted any local economy, please show me one case where that is true. I mean if its so simple, it should be easy to show, right?


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 12:29:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Walmart lowers the standard of living for its employees, and the rest of us pay for their health care benefits.
Soon "the rest of us" will be paying for everyone's health care, so what difference does it make.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 12:31:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Walmart lowers the standard of living for its employees, and the rest of us pay for their health care benefits.


!!???

This simply shows that MEDICAID is the problem. Not Wal-Mart. Blaming people for using socialist style entitlement programs and pointing fingers at Wal-Mart is simply assinine.

quote:
they force tens of thousands of employees to rely on state and federal public assistance programs to make ends meet.


Taken from your link. If you can't see how biased a statement like this is, then I just can't argue with you. Wal-Mart doesn't " force " anything. Least of all people who seem all to willing to work there.

You know I think I see why I can't win against you Wal Mart bashers. Its because you are all under the false premise that small business has a right to survive and flourish if a larger competitor can do it cheaper and better than them. This is FALSE.

quote:
I'm not sure how you think Walmart has boosted any local economy, please show me one case where that is true. I mean if its so simple, it should be easy to show, right?


Again, I have been too sucked in by these false premised viewpoints. In order to win, I will have to somehow proove to you its a good thing when smaller businesses provide less goods and services and a higher cost than Wal-Mart. Really , think about that for a minute.

Its such an emotional argument and I kind of feel ashamed at how many times I have been dragged into it by ignorant people.

quote:
while claims that Walmart will destroy the local economy are extreme


So ask him to prove that. Why am I being asked to " prove " my observations ?

I can't, and won't, prove to you thats its a good thing when inferior businesses take a backseat to larger more competitive firms. It goes against common sense and basic economics.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 12:41:15 PM , Rating: 1
What I don't like about regarding health care with Walmart is how they try to come off about how great of benefits they provide. They claim that 100% of their employees have health care. This is such a stretch of the truth that if it was a vagina you could back in a semi.

50% of Walmart's employees have health care through their spouses employer.

25% get benefits from Walmart. They claim to offer health care for as low as $5 a month. What they don't say is that that plan is worthless. By the time you meet the out of pocket maximum, you might as well have kept the $5 a month. My mom made $120,000 a year working for Walmart and her benefits were insanely expensive for decent coverage. She was never so happy to leave a job as that one.

The final 25% get it from Medicare and Medicaid.

Now yes, Walmart is a private business. It is more the fault of those who continue to shop there for their success than it is Walmarts. They provide what people want. Low prices at any cost. Quality be damned. I choose not to support that mentality.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 12:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is such a stretch of the truth that if it was a vagina you could back in a semi.


Ewww.. man, that was a mental image I really could have done without. :P

quote:
Low prices at any cost. Quality be damned. I choose not to support that mentality.


My milk is milk. My oranges are oranges. My meat is meat. And my DVD's are DVD's. /shrug. I don't see a difference in these good when I go to Wal-Mart.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 12:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the DVD comment, but I think Walmart's produce blows (compared to the other options around me).


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 12:52:15 PM , Rating: 1
Walmart milk is not the same quality as other brands. It even looks more like water. Nor does it last as long. My roommates in college bought Walmart crap. I could tell the difference.

Their beef and chicken are not USDA grade A. If you don't believe there's a difference, even Sams Club WILL NOT sell chicken meant to go to Walmart. Same company. My mom tried to get some chicken at Sams Club and all they had in the truck was stuff bound for a Walmart store. They wouldn't sell it to her even though she asked for it.

Yes DVDs are the same. But I'd rather pay .50-1.00 more and get it elsewhere than support Walmart.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 1:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My mom tried to get some chicken at Sams Club and all they had in the truck was stuff bound for a Walmart store. They wouldn't sell it to her even though she asked for it.
I'm not sure your example proves anything about the quality differences between Walmart and Sams. For inventory reasons alone, I could see why a company wouldn't want to sell a product at StoreA that is bound for StoreB. Nevermind the accounting for two separate companies.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By bhieb on 12/10/2008 1:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Now this I can respect, you don't agree with their practices so you vote with your wallet. This is how it should be, the argument here is that WM "destroys" the local economy. But as your stance correctly illustrates it is the community that chooses to support their practices that "destroys" the local economy.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 5:04:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Walmart milk is not the same quality as other brands. It even looks more like water. Nor does it last as long.


Now your just spreading FUD. And by the time my milk has soaked up a huge bowl of sugared cereal, it wouldn't matter anyway.

quote:
Their beef and chicken are not USDA grade A.


http://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading.html

The USDA rating has nothing to do with the health quality of meat. It is based on marbling, the age of the cow, and the skeletal structure of the cow.

Big f'ing deal. You are trying to make it sound like Wal-Mart beef is full of worms or something. And you, Fit, standing behind a federal agency when it might help your case is pretty ironic.

quote:
My mom tried to get some chicken at Sams Club and all they had in the truck was stuff bound for a Walmart store. They wouldn't sell it to her even though she asked for it.


What ???

Since when could ANYONE walk up to store, point at an 18 wheeler bound for another store, and say " hey, sell me something from that !" ???

You think that story has jack crap to do with meat quality ? Let me ask you something, what happens when that truck gets to Wal-Mart and the inventory manager notices that a bunch of chicken that THEY ordered is missing ? And what happens to the driver when he says " I let some lady at Sams buy some ?" Honestly man, come off it.

quote:
Yes DVDs are the same. But I'd rather pay .50-1.00 more and get it elsewhere than support Walmart.


Good for you. I don't have time to be an activist and wage personal crusades. I'm too busy just trying to live my life and save money so I can blow it on things that really matter. Like PC upgrades and cars :P


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By lagomorpha on 12/13/2008 12:18:46 AM , Rating: 1
I've stopped buying milk at Walmart after noticing it rarely lasts as long as milk from other stores as well. I doubt they're setting their refrigerators at higher temperatures and the brands are the same, strange.

I've yet to find chicken at Walmart that wasn't Tyson Chicken, a brand I will not buy.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Myg on 12/10/2008 1:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
yea, but with such a ruthless taste for profit and a license to kill competition; how much longer will the milk be actual milk, the oranges be actual oranges and the meat be actual meat?

Its a question worth considering, especially if your health consious.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 12:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My mom made $120,000 a year working for Walmart and her benefits were insanely expensive for decent coverage.
And as you just pointed out, her salary was high enough to buy her own insurance.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 12:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
Where she works now she makes $140,000 a year and pays far less for health insurance at a company far smaller than Walmart. With how big they are they could easily provide decent health care at a cheap price. They don't because they believe in keeping prices low regardless of what they have to do to do so. If they had a choice between providing decent health care to their employees and making their items 5 cents cheaper, they'd make their items 5 cents cheaper.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 1:04:02 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not trying to make an argument for/against Walmart, or compare it against other companies. I was merely stating that while she may not have been given health insurance as a benefit, her monetary compensation could cover the cost of health insurance.

Furthermore, your story exemplifies exactly how the system is designed to work. Your mom was being paid what Walmart considered was appropriate for the value she was offering the company. For whatever reason, she decided to leave and now makes more at a different company. The power, ultimately lying in the hands of the employee. And if enough people leave based on Walmart's compensation, they'll increase it (even if it means charging 5 cents more for items) because without doing that, they won't have employees to run the business.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By bhieb on 12/10/2008 1:38:39 PM , Rating: 3
And this is bad why (aside from quality because the consumer still chooses what lower standard they can live with at a given price)? That is their entire company philosophy, and for once a company actually stands by what they say. Your mom had a choice and she chose to move on (as she should have). But again it is all about choice be it the employee side or the consumer side. It is DEFINITELY not WM's fault.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By King of Heroes on 12/10/2008 2:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They provide what people want. Low prices at any cost. Quality be damned.


Well, in their defense, I get the impression this is what the majority of the American public wants.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 4:49:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My mom made $120,000 a year working for Walmart and her benefits were insanely expensive for decent coverage.


120k a year sounds pretty damn good for a non union job in a retail chain. And your arguing that she also needed better benefits ?


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By FITCamaro on 12/11/2008 8:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
She didn't work in a store.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Ringold on 12/10/2008 4:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean if its so simple, it should be easy to show, right?


I've read numerous econometric papers analyzing WalMarts aggregate impact on the country as a whole, and WalMart has by itself shaved several points of core inflation off. Beyond that, the impact starts to look like the debate on free trades impact on labor; on the one hand, it increases real income with lower prices, on the other, a small number of workers are negatively impacted. Thats the case with many things in life; improved robotics could make cars cheaper for everyone, but assembly line workers are going to get shafted. As for links, well, it's been widely discussed in economics circles, once or twice a year another study is done that concludes the same thing, I wont do your homework for you.

A common theme with such changes though are resistance to change, to advancing the economy. The people that once were employed by local mom & pops should take the hint: get an education, and join the post-industrial economy. (And by education, I mean a technical one, not a liberal arts one)


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By omnicronx on 12/10/2008 1:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
Lets make it simple
1. Walmart opens up
2. Walmart takes business from local business's
3. local small business's can't compete and go out of business
4. Walmart makes a nice profit and injects nothing back into the local economy except for the taxes it must pay.
5. People go to work for walmart at lower wages which forces other small businesses out of business as a result of reduced spending.
6. As a result people are forced to leave the town as a result of lack of jobs, further damaging the local economy.

Unless the small city/town manufactuers products for Walmart (which does happen, but rarely in small towns and cities), the local economy will suffer.

There you go, simple economics.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 1:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. Walmart takes business from local business's
Let's correct this line.
2. Residents give their business to Walmart instead of local businesses.

quote:
4. Walmart makes a nice profit and injects nothing back into the local economy except for the taxes it must pay.
Alright, now that's just blatantly false too. Walmart does put money back in to the communities. My fiance, for example, received a scholarship from Walmart for her first year of college.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By omnicronx on 12/10/2008 1:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Alright, now that's just blatantly false too. Walmart does put money back in to the communities. My fiance, for example, received a scholarship from Walmart for her first year of college.
I don't think you understand what I am talking about here. Ill try to explain; a small business owner makes money, he takes this money and spends it on anything from necessities to non essential items from another small business owner. And the circle continues, so that the local economy is self dependent.

What happens with walmart is it puts this same small business owner (say his store competes with walmart) goes out of business, or they struggle to stay in business. This small business owner must now reduce his overall spending, and is much less likely to buy non essential items, and probably less day to day essentials to save money, or in the worst case scenario stops spending completely and leaves the area to find another job.

I have personally seen Walmarts turn nice towns into ghost towns, I'm not just making this up.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not disputing the fact that other businesses close after Walmart moves into town. I'm disputing who is responsible for those closures. I have argued in several other posts here that the onus of responsibility lies in the consumers, and the residents of the said town. I can't state this any simpler: Walmart does not cause businesses to close.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By omnicronx on 12/10/2008 2:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well in that case its the consumers fault that GM, Ford and Chrystler are going out of business too. I mean it was the consumer that wanted to buy these high margin gas guzzling SUV's and trucks, the auto giants just reaped the benefits.</sarcasm>

Cause and Effect buddy, it does not matter for what reason it happens, Walmart coming into town causes people to go there because of lower prices. It does not matter whos 'fault' it is or if the local consumer chose to shop at Walmart, the point is Walmart is the cause, and people shopping at walmart instead of local businesss which in turn causes the local economy to crash is the effect.

Walmart is the cause, thus it is responsible.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 4:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well in that case its the consumers fault that GM, Ford and Chrystler are going out of business too. I mean it was the consumer that wanted to buy these high margin gas guzzling SUV's and trucks, the auto giants just reaped the benefits.</sarcasm>
Yes, it is the consumers' "fault" that the Big Three auto makers are about to fail. Consumers had the option of purchasing their vehicles, despite whatever rationale they were using to purchase something from the competition. They had an opportunity to say "you know what, I'd like this Camry more, but I really don't want GM to die, so I'll buy the Malibu". And unfortunately for GM, they chose not to. That was the consumers' way of voicing their displeasure of GM's products and/or of the way the executives chose to run the company.

quote:
Cause and Effect buddy, it does not matter for what reason it happens, Walmart coming into town causes people to go there because of lower prices.
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. Walmart coming into town doesn't cause people to shop there. People valuing low prices over mostly everything else, and Walmart providing the lowest price on many goods is what causes people to shop there. People make that value judgment, just as they do with every other purchase.

quote:
It does not matter whos 'fault' it is or if the local consumer chose to shop at Walmart, the point is Walmart is the cause, and people shopping at walmart instead of local businesss which in turn causes the local economy to crash is the effect. Walmart is the cause, thus it is responsible.
Of course it matters who's "fault" it is, because that "fault" is the cause. It's who's responsible. You're claiming it's Walmart. That somehow Walmart's existence changes people's values, and controls their behavior. That simply is not the case.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 5:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well in that case its the consumers fault that GM, Ford and Chrystler are going out of business too. I mean it was the consumer that wanted to buy these high margin gas guzzling SUV's and trucks, the auto giants just reaped the benefits.


Uhhh wrong.

Toyota and GM in 2007 sold roughly the same exact number of total vehicles. Toyota made 17.5 billion. GM LOST 32 billion.

Consumers WERE buying. That wasn't the problem.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Ringold on 12/10/2008 4:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have personally seen Walmarts turn nice towns into ghost towns, I'm not just making this up.


The exodus from the country to the city has been going on since long before WalMart was founded. I'd say that, perhaps, it is a symptom and not a core cause. The core cause is that rural communities can't economically compete; too few people, perhaps not enough opportunity for specialization of labor? I don't know, I haven't studied it much in developed countries (Paul Krugman would probably be a good one to read on the issue), but there must be some draw that has caused the young of rural communities to flee to the city for generations. For whatever reason, small towns can't draw jobs. I love small towns, they're more personal than faceless urban oceans, but the deck is stacked against them.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By bhieb on 12/10/2008 1:46:43 PM , Rating: 3
I bet the local mom and pops gave lots of scholorships out too when they were milking the community for every dime they could. /sarcasm

Wal-mart does nothing without the help of the community that supports it.

If you start any sentence with Walmart (does/impacts/affects/violates/any other verb), then your argument instantly fails. Walmart cannot act if they do not have consumers spending money and supporting them (if the store sells no goods and closes with 0 sales there will be no impact on anything other than a physical building), therefore Walmart cannot DO anything. The blame rests squarely on the consumers who support them.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Myg on 12/10/2008 1:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
Spot on there; a town that exists without knowing whats important will be gobbled up by the "low price hysteria" that wal-mart offers, if not by something else...

A weak town will die by its own hand, and maybe that is rightly deserved, no?


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 2:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a town that exists without knowing whats important will be gobbled up by the "low price hysteria" that wal-mart offers, if not by something else...
As if "what's important" is the same for everyone, and the problem is all of those ignorant people. Honestly. Importance is based entirely on your values, which incidentally, are different for everyone. And as difficult as this may be for you to comprehend, some people value low prices.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Myg on 12/10/2008 2:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
I know plenty of people with the same values...

But

Obviously your talking at a different level as I was; but the old saying goes "you get what you pay for", and im sure those who value low prices over everything will definetly get what they deserve (see my previous post).


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 4:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and im sure those who value low prices over everything will definetly get what they deserve
The enormous success of a business who's core competency is low prices? Why yes, you are correct!


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By bhieb on 12/10/2008 1:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
I bet the local mom and pops gave lots of scholorships out too when they were milking the community for every dime they could. /sarcasm

Wal-mart does nothing without the help of the community that supports it.

If you start any sentence with Walmart (does/impacts/affects/violates/any other verb), then your argument instantly fails. Walmart cannot act if they do not have consumers spending money and supporting them (if the store sells no goods and closes with 0 sales there will be no impact on anything other than a physical building), therefore Walmart cannot DO anything. The blame rests squarely on the consumers who support them.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By eye smite on 12/10/2008 3:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
In major cities it doesn't hurt the local economy as much as there are many corporations of various names competing with walmart. Where it hurts are small towns like the one I live in of 6k people where the local hardware store can't buy the volumes that walmart does and offer the lower prices. That's why this town continues to block super walmart, we have one of the brick and mortar stores from the late 70s and while I don't go there much, it's nice to look once in a while because the stuff that doesn't sell at super walmarts gets sent here on clearance. :-) That's ususally all I'll buy at walmart, clearance items. lol


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 6:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets make it simple


Lets.

quote:
1. Walmart opens up


Uhh doesn't it have to be built first ? And don't they have to purchase the land from the city or a private LOCAL landowner ? Usually paying millions of dollars. Do you have any idea how many contractors and construction workers goes into building a Super Wal Mart ? Oh and I suppose the multi million dollars of constructions materials it takes materializes out of thin air and is NOT purchased by Wal-Mart ? Not to mention the endless fees and permits and inspection fees levied that all goes into the LOCAL government.

quote:
2. Walmart takes business from local business's


Here we go again. Nobody said businesses have the right to a competition free environment.

quote:
4. Walmart makes a nice profit and injects nothing back into the local economy except for the taxes it must pay.


By this logic, NO business injects anything back into the local economy. Making your point nill. What do local businesses inject back besides far LESS taxes then Wal-Mart?

quote:
6. As a result people are forced to leave the town as a result of lack of jobs, further damaging the local economy.


Moronic. I defy you to show me one person that moved because of Wal-Mart and only Wal-Mart.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Kary on 12/10/2008 1:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
I work for "mom and pop" electronics store that has survived Walmart, Best Buy, ....

When Walmart comes in, stores HAVE to be more competitive to survive and have to find niches (Walmart doesn't do installs), but they aren't necessarily a killer. Also, it's not necessarily bad if they are...anyone remember when you had to pay a guy to pump gas (I don't, thank goodness). Sometimes there is just a better way and you have to improve or be trampled as customers leave you.

As for the big 3...
Lobbied to raise the price on small/fuel efficient cars from other countries.
Did no research to make fuel efficient/small cars because "no one wants them"
Wonder why when gas prices go high the first thing customers do is stop buying their vehicles.
Complain to the government that they have to lay off workers because no one is buying their vehicles instead of hiring on MORE workers to do the research into more fuel efficient cars that they should have already done.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 6:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When Walmart comes in, stores HAVE to be more competitive to survive and have to find niches (Walmart doesn't do installs), but they aren't necessarily a killer. Also, it's not necessarily bad if they are...anyone remember when you had to pay a guy to pump gas (I don't, thank goodness). Sometimes there is just a better way and you have to improve or be trampled as customers leave you.


WHAT !!?? You mean businesses can change, restructure, and adapt and stay open !!?? Everyone is saying Wal-Mart just shows up with an H-bomb and levels everything around them. Are you sure you know what your talking about !??? /sarcasm


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By TomZ on 12/10/2008 12:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So Walmart just opened a store in your town this year, and the economy wasn't destroyed? Silly rabbit.

A new Wal-Mart was built near our community, and a whole lot of other new stores were developed and operate within the same strip-mall as Wal-Mart. That's a lot of job creation, and a lot of new business, due to Wal-Mart.

Also, these types of big stores also increase the local tax base and make the community a slightly more desirable place to live.

People who fight the big box stores are basically clueless about the positive impact it can have. They just have this knee-jerk "resist change" mentality which dominates. I've now lived in a couple of communities where big-box stores came in and the results have been very positive.

And to heck with "mom-and-pop" stores that have higher prices and worse service because they are the only game in town - until Wal-Mart, Meijer, etc. arrive. Good riddance!


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By MozeeToby on 12/10/2008 12:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Show me a mom and pop store with 'worse service' than Wal-Mart and I'll show you a store that should have been out of business long before Wal-Mart moved in.

Also, keep in mind that Wal-Mart doesn't bring wealth into your town. Most likely, the same people shop there as shopped elsewhere in town. There aren't any increased tax revenues, unless you're pulling in customers from smaller nearby towns; in which case those towns have lost the tax revenue. It's really a zero sum game, unless wallmart brings production to your area, there is no increase in the total amount of money available.

Combine that with the fact that Wal-Mart pays employees significantly less than their competition and in the long run you may in fact reduce the total wealth of your town.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 12:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show me a mom and pop store with 'worse service' than Wal-Mart


There is a LOT more to services then just 'customer service'.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Suntan on 12/10/2008 1:50:40 PM , Rating: 1
I must say, you seem to be the sort that is completely overlooking the downsides of the small “mom and pop” store as not their fault, while directly blaming Wal Mart for things that truly aren’t their fault.

Now as to the common statements that people have to take jobs at lesser pay when they start working at Wal Mart, I just don’t buy it. I look at the people that get jobs at Wal Mart (not store managers or corporate, but the floor workers and cashiers) and I think they are overpaid regardless of what Wal Mart is actually paying them. To think that they had a different job, with higher pay, prior to their Wal mart job is laughable. Now you can look at it that Wal Mart only hires craap employees, I tend to look at it a little like that, and a little that Wal Mart is offering jobs to employees that few other people want to hire.

-Suntan


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By eyebeeemmpawn on 12/10/2008 12:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a lot of job creation, and a lot of new business, due to Wal-Mart.


Is it really job creation and new business? or just a shift from an existing business? just seems like a pretty weak argument for walmart.

quote:
People who fight the big box stores are basically clueless about the positive impact it can have. They just have this knee-jerk "resist change" mentality which dominates. I've now lived in a couple of communities where big-box stores came in and the results have been very positive.


care to elaborate on these "positive" results? I have yet to hear a positive thoughtful argument for Walmart. They would need to be fairly significant to overcome the costs to all taxpayers to cover the health care of the walmart employees. It seems to me the only one with a "resist change" mentality is you, since the status quo is big box stores going up, independent stores disappear.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 12:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It seems to me the only one with a "resist change" mentality is you, since the status quo is big box stores going up, independent stores disappear.


A few miles up the road here is Charlotte N.C. Which has god knows how many Wal-Mart's and " big box " stores.

The amount of independent and " mom and pops " there are is simply incalculable. Especially in the BOOMING uptown/downtown district.

What WILL and does drive away small businesses like no other is Democrat driven taxes and levies. NOT more competition. Competition is ALWAYS a good thing.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 12:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Where my parents live in Orlando, there are 3 Walmarts each within a 20-25 minute drive. Walmart talked about opening up a store right up the road. Now about 15 minutes away there was a Walmart that went out of business because crime was so high.

My parents neighborhood fought against the opening of the Walmart and won. Why didn't they want it there? Because it would bring even more traffic, more homeless people, and more crime. This was a neighborhood with mostly the elderly and middle class to upper middle class families. They shop at Publix. If they wanted to shop at Walmart, they would drive the quick trip to one of the other ones.

There was absolutely no need to build another. And there was also a K-Mart and a Target very close as well.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 1:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There was absolutely no need to build another. And there was also a K-Mart and a Target very close as well.
Not from your parents' perspective. From Walmart's perspective things looked much different. They're in the business of making money, and putting up a new store isn't cheap. Don't think for a minute that Walmart hadn't determined that this store would be "needed" or at least profitable. If there are Target and K-Mart stores nearby, there is a need in that area for the type of services Walmart offers. Someone may currently be serving that need, but that doesn't mean Walmart can't try to replace the existing provider.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 5:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
/shrug

Fit only seems to be a conservative when it's convenient.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 5:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
I have to admit, I was a bit surprised to be arguing against FIT on an economic/political issue.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Moishe on 12/11/2008 11:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see proof.

Like anyone else i've lived and watched Walmart put up stores. I've seen crappy businesses come and go and I've seen the good ones stay. Walmart is a jack-of-all-trades master of none. There are plenty of local stores where I live that have done just fine.

I'm sick of the whiners that blame their own poor management on Walmart. Those mom & pop shops that are poorly managed are the low-hanging fruit. They will always be the first to go, NOT because Walmart is eviiiil, but because they are (apparently) incapable of competing in the real world.

I want to see companies go away if they can't compete. In that sense the 'Big 3' should be left to rot and die if they cannot provide a decent product for a decent price.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By omnicronx on 12/10/2008 1:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats such a load of bullcrap and I'm getting tired of reading it on here. Show me ONE local economy thats been " destroyed ".
You are joking right? When a Walmart comes into a small city or town, competing small business's tend to go out of business. And while people may still have jobs, its not like Walmart puts any of their profits back into the city or town (other thantaxes). On the other hand a small business owner would have, this is how they 'destroy' local economies.

Perhaps after only a year your small town has not felt the hit the way other small towns have. But I have seen first hand what a Walmart can do to a small community.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Moishe on 12/11/2008 11:10:51 AM , Rating: 2
I have anecdotes too.

My town now has 3 super Walmarts and local business is doing fine. The grocery stores that were worried are booming (because they offer more variety and better product generally) are doing great. Other small businesses are popping up just like before and some stay.

People who are against Walmart are like people who are against 'new fangled' tech. Those people want to keep the 'old' way because... hell I don't know, habit, tradition? Walmart and others are the natural evolution of business and they have their place. There is no way they can outdo anyone on anything. They thrive on commodity. As it should be, if you want something decent, you still have to go local.

Mom and Pop should start admitting that their lack of business knowledge and poor management skills are probably the biggest factor in losing against a large, educated business entity.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By bnutz on 12/10/2008 11:36:26 AM , Rating: 2
The last paragraph is so true. I think the should get rid of any CEOs whose company is getting a bailout and maybe the whole board. They get paid to prevent this and to make money for the company not just themselves. They are all to worried about their paychecks and bonuses and forget that the company needs to make enough money to cash the check. I hate that every time a company needs to make cuts the first thing they do is fire people. How about examine everyone bonus and pay. Company pay their CEO and board members millions when there are people who are the bread and butter of the company making minimum wage. These guys are taking money and spending like crazy and give bonuses when the company is suffering. I am not against a bonus but I would take a job over a bonus. Look at wall street, $70 billion of the bailout is going to bonuses, where else are the getting the money? When do we get our bailout?


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Ordr on 12/10/2008 11:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
Any system that allows government lobbying to make changes to how the economy and private business operate is not a capitalist system. It is a mixed economy. Calling it "capitalism" is incorrect. Capitalism is defined as: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

The market is not free and hasn't been since the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. (Actually even prior to 1890 there were smaller and more localized rules and regulations in order to stifle free trade but the SAA was the largest and most severe.)


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Emryse on 12/10/2008 4:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
You're making some very general statements that in total are really not accurate.

Or, more to the point, I hold you very strongly to your definition of "American Capitalism".

Yes, I see your point that corporations in their lobbying of Congress and gov't officials have created a cancerous environment for true capitalism (if that was your point).


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By 16nm on 12/10/2008 7:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
The locals decided not to support their local economy, not Walmart.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Ordr on 12/10/2008 8:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
If it operates in their locality and hires local people, they are supporting their economy.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By joeindian1551 on 12/10/2008 11:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
You can't blame the current "failure" of the Big 3 on just the CEOs in charge now. This isn't your typical run a red light wreck, no, this is one of those train wrecks where you can see it coming but you can't stop.

30 years of bad decisions have done nothing but add momentum to this fail train and no matter who Obama pulls out of his back pocket they will not be able to turn it around in the short term.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By DigitalFreak on 12/10/2008 11:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
Oh really? In the last few years, between Bill Ford and Mulally, Ford has made good progress in turning itself around, so you can't tell me this whole mess was unstoppable. Wagoner hasn't done jack sh*t in the 8 years he's been at GM. He needs to go. Now.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 11:20:01 AM , Rating: 3
Yes but Gm's SHAREHOLDERS and board of directors should be the ones to decide that. NOT the Government and sure as hell not Obama who isn't even sworn in to office yet.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By whirabomber on 12/10/2008 12:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say 1/3 of the big 3 have made big strides - Ford is #3 in initial quality with at least 2 cars (cheap but, fusion and montego?) #1 in class. Also they are planning on turbo 4's and 6's (1980's cobra anyone).

You can blame chrysler for the diesel stigma - they had a few clunkers called engines in the 70's and 80's thus gave the diesel car a bad name. Sadly everyone ignored the diesel germans that are still living well on the road from the same period and then some.

When in Korea, 90% of the vehicles on the road were diesel, hence the reason everything was covered in black/gray soot. I think Americans are ready for small diesels again as a diesel still would be cheaper than hybrid in the long run.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By silhrt on 12/10/2008 12:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, i could agree with you if they weren't begging the GOVERNMENT for money.

If I am going to give them a loan then I d**n sure want to know that they are going to use it better than they have in the past. It's my money and if they want it then do show us a better way of using it or find another place to get a bailout.

The whole difference here is the fact that they are begging the government for the money.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Suntan on 12/10/2008 2:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I am going to give them a loan then I d**n sure want to know that they are going to use it better than they have in the past.


Then I would suggest you ask for something more useful than a symbolic head-on-a-plate.

Why ask for a company’s CEO to step down? Why not ask for the board to put together a plan that looks likely to return a positive investment? If the board can’t do that (with or without a new CEO) does it make sense to give them the money?

But congress’s constituents couldn’t be bothered with real business realities, although they always have time for a hanging.

My biggest complaint is how easily Barak is flowing along with all the same, tired political mechanics. Ask for a symbolic gesture like the CEOs head to distract and quiet down the angry mob… I thought this guy was supposed to be the second coming that would actually lead “change?”

-Suntan


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Emryse on 12/10/2008 4:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Here, Here!!!


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Moishe on 12/11/2008 11:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
That's so stupid. Wagoner is by no means "good", but GM is an old company. GM has grown large and unwieldy and is no longer viable as a business. The only way to make GM healthy will be to make deep cuts and get rid of the baggage that prevents it from competing with its peers.

Wagoner does need to go. Mulally, maybe. Getting rid of them will not fix the core problem though and throwing more cash in won't help either.

You don't put a bandaid on a shot gun wound and reasonably expect it to do anything helpful.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Nfarce on 12/10/2008 1:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
So true. Did Daimler see the writing on Chrysler's wall or what? They got the hell out.

There is much more to this than the aforementioned CEOs, however. As someone else stated, where are the comments and demands on union concessions? Why not ask the union chief(s) to step down? After all, considering that there are nearly three union workers not working (retired, laid off, whatever the reason) for every one working, and all are on the liability side (payroll/benefits) of the Big Three's balance sheet, there is reason to merit both sides of the bargaining table - no matter how long ago the deals between the UAW and management were brokered.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By Hiawa23 on 12/10/2008 1:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
pot meet kettle. We have a govt borrowing money from the Chinese, almost going bankrupt trying to dictacte to companies who has lost billions. How ironic..... I really don't know how to feel about the loan for auto industry who has had years of mismanagement. I know this.. I don't want more Americans to lose their jobs, but like Glen Beck said, if we are only delaying the colapse, then all these loans will be worthless if they can't pay it back. I am not sure how you can keep the management team in place given what they have allowed on their watch.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By 16nm on 12/10/2008 7:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
I feel the last thing we need is more government. Maybe the time has come for the BIG 2.


RE: Car Czar? Ugh.
By PWNettle on 12/11/2008 4:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see. Those companies are laying off how many people these days?

And how many management and executive positions, all getting paid ridiculous sums, are getting laid off?

Shouldn't the people who make the poor decisions get the axe first? The people getting paid obscene money to predict and plan?

I understand the ties of the auto industry to the economy but it's somewhat ridiculous that the governement is bailing out businesses like this in a capitalistic society.

If some mom and pop shop got run out of business by walmart the govt wouldn't be bailing them out, it'd be "too bad, someone else came up with a better idea or did your thing better, it's just capatilism."

The US auto industry has been sucking for years and has made little effort to change. And now the very public they've screwed for years is supposed to bail them out.

Only in America, baby, only in America.


So long USA
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 10:09:16 AM , Rating: 1
Let us all welcome the change of the name of our nation to that of the United Socialist States of America. Where the government, due to unconstitutional (the constitution. another thing they'll tear up) bailouts, will be able to tell private industry who should be at the head of their respective companies.

So anyway.....
Banks government owned and run. Check.
Auto Industry government owned and run. Check.

So what they gonna do next....Microsoft? ISPs? Power companies? Phone companies?

Just remember to work hard and long. The millions of Americans (all who likely voted for Obama) are counting on you to pay for their housing, food, health care, and retirement.




RE: So long USA
By sweetsauce on 12/10/2008 10:25:13 AM , Rating: 2
Did you just blame this crap on people that voted for Obama? Take the blinders off once in a while man, the world isn't black and white.


RE: So long USA
By killerb255 on 12/10/2008 4:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
QFT!!!!

Too much black and white thinking here, especially for many people that I've seen post here that normally come off quite intelligent.

Black and white thinking is just too simplistic. Everything's either ALL GOOD or ALL BAD, ALL RIGHT or ALL WRONG, ALL HAPPY or ALL SAD!

What happened to the gray area? The spectrum? The scale of 1 to 100? Or even 1 to 10?

Does our market have to be ALL CAPITALISM, and if anything deviates from that, then it becomes ALL SOCIALISM? Of course not!

How about a happy medium? After all, too much capitalism and we have people abusing their power in narcissistic ways. Too much socialism, and we have people wanting a free ride at the expense of those that bust their rear ends.

Everybody repeat after me: Balllllaaaannnncccceeeee.


RE: So long USA
By ebakke on 12/10/2008 4:26:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Does our market have to be ALL CAPITALISM
Yes


RE: So long USA
By hashish2020 on 12/10/2008 10:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
Then you should advocate for the dissolution of Walmart


RE: So long USA
By Dreifort on 12/11/2008 3:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
where did Walmart get it's orgin?

It started as a small town store. It grew because CUSTOMERS kept shopping there. Walmart wasn't forced on anyone. If no one shops at Walmart, they go out of business.

that's the definition of capitalism.

If you start an open store named "Anti-Walmart"...or let's say, "Target" in your town...and it grows...and 20 yrs later, you have 4000 stores nationwide. That's capitalism.

But then that's a good thing because they beat Walmart.

Get your motives and your financial structures correct hashish. There is socialism...capitalism..and IHATEWALMARTBLABLAHBLAism.


RE: So long USA
By hashish2020 on 12/22/2008 8:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that Wal Mart gets tens of billions of dollars worth of subsidies from the Chinese government's artificial weakening of the yuan...I think Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is more appropriate than capitalism


RE: So long USA
By Dreifort on 12/11/2008 3:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
How come NO ONE in America can mention something bad (with merit) about Obama or any of his constituents that some idiot has to turn it into a racial thing.

FIT never brought race into this topic, you did sauce...you must be high on your self sweetsauce; you need to lay off the sauce. Only ppl making Obama a race issue are ppl like you.

I'm sorry, but your messiah Obama can and does have issues that are not race related. I don't care if he's white, green or purple - I don't agree with some of things he stands for - and neither does 50% of other ppl in this country. It's not about race, and you're an idiot for thinking me or someone like FIT is making it out to be a race issue.


RE: So long USA
By Mozee on 12/10/2008 10:37:33 AM , Rating: 4
The part I still love is how they continually lump all 3 of the US automakers into the same grouping. GM and Chrysler are definitely in a bad situation, but with the current $15B bridge loan package being considered Ford won't even touch the money.

Getting rid of Mulally would be a horrible idea. Since coming to Ford as President and CEO in September '06, he took what Bill Ford had been working on after ousting Jacques Nasser. He took Bill Ford's "Way Forward" Plan to restructure the company for the current-day market and has grown it to the current "One Ford" plan that had the company turning a profit in 1Q '08 before auto sales in the US dropped by 33%. He has already put into place what's needed to make the company profitable.

I can definitely see the reasons for calls to have Wagoner step down. He's been President and CEO at GM since June '00 and Chairman since May '03. Although the company has slowly started to make some changes in the right direction, it makes sense to blame him for a lot of what's happened during his time in charge.

Nardelli I can't really hang a lot of blame on. He's only been at Chrysler since August '07. You can't really blame him when he's only been in charge for just over a year.


RE: So long USA
By DigitalFreak on 12/10/2008 11:07:31 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed. All things considered, Ford is doing alright.

BTW, f*ck you W. If Chrysler goes under, the company that owns them damn well better be held responsible for paying back the taxpayers.


RE: So long USA
By lukasbradley on 12/10/2008 11:03:38 AM , Rating: 1
I'm interested to hear how the bailouts are unconstitutional.


RE: So long USA
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 12:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm interested to hear how the bailouts are unconstitutional.


Maybe not the actually ACT. But if the result is HUGE portions of our economy and big businesses being de-facto federalized, then yes, that would go against the Constitution.


RE: So long USA
By hashish2020 on 12/10/2008 11:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
Find me the part where it says the government cannot interfere or nationalize in the economy

Hell, it SPECIFICALLY says the federal government has the power to regulate interstate trade


RE: So long USA
By Regs on 12/11/2008 12:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
The commerce clause is what its most known as and it's not as black and white: Interstate, not intrastate. Though in the growing complexities of our economy, intrastate commerce having a direct impact on interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has been clearing way to more intrastate federal regulation but often on a case by case basis.

The Commercial Clause, what it's more commonly known for, was first made so that one state cannot make undue hardships on another states commerce. Lets say you want to transport music CDs from NY to Michigan by truck, but PA wants to charge a tax for crossing it's boarder just because it came from NY. That would be unconstitutional. It's a simplified example, but just as long as you're aware of the differences between interstate and not intrastate.


RE: So long USA
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2008 12:07:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Find me the part where it says the government cannot interfere or nationalize in the economy


All powers NOT specifically granted by the Constitution are, technically, illegal. I don't have to find you the part saying they can't do it. YOU have to find the part saying they CAN.

The thing about the Constitution is that it, quite clearly, set aside a process for ratifying or AMENDING it. Except Democrats totally ignore that and pass anything they want using the Supreme Court to " interpret " the Constitution.

If you want to make changes to it, fine, I have no problem with that. The forefathers KNEW it would have to be changed and laid the blueprint for how to do it. My problem is when its simply ignored and outright violated.

quote:
Hell, it SPECIFICALLY says the federal government has the power to regulate interstate trade


SO now interstate trade is the same as telling companies who their leaders can be, what products they should make, and how they should make them ?


RE: So long USA
By BansheeX on 12/10/2008 1:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
Even the Federal Reserve Act, which itself is unconstitutional, does not authorize the Fed to buy up private assets with its magic checkbook. We're way past the "omg it's unconstitutional" point, the population is too dumb to pay any attention to the money rules within it that enable all this socialist nonsense. The biggest joke is how judges view the 10th amendment as a superfluous truism. In reality, it's the most important one because it denies the FEDERAL government all powers not explicitly given by the constitution. So if the constitution grants CONGRESS the ability to coin money, and all debt must be made payable in gold and silver, they can't designate money creation powers to a private entity to get around that. If they want to do it, they have to amend it, which is an intentionally difficult thing to accomplish.


RE: So long USA
By Spivonious on 12/10/2008 2:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Where in the Consitution does it give Congress the ability to loan money to private companies? I'll save you the trouble: it doesn't. Then again, 99% of the bills passed by Congress are unconstitutional, so what's a few more? /sarcasm


RE: So long USA
By TomZ on 12/10/2008 12:07:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So what they gonna do next....Microsoft? ISPs? Power companies? Phone companies?

I would guess the Airline industry. Probably will happen next time fuel prices spike again.

I agree with you that America is on yet another bad path. I don't have a big problem with the bailouts - but I disagree with all the strings attached. The government should either approve or reject the loans. They should not be calling for the removal of the CEOs and to be able to scrutinize the operation of the companies. Shame on Obama for that - that's his second strike (first was supporting the sit-in in that plant in Illinois).

If one thing has been proved time and time again, it is that the federal government has no ability to execute in an efficient or effective manner. They have nothing to offer the car makers in terms of guidance and expertise - nothing.

A bunch of politicians running car companies - how do you think that will end up? If you think the situation is bad now...just let Obama appoint a "car czar" to "fix" the industry...LOL.


RE: So long USA
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 12:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
Actually heard an audio clip of Obama saying that "its been shown time and again that the economy is best off when the wealth is spread around".


RE: So long USA
By Lord 666 on 12/10/2008 1:01:36 PM , Rating: 1
Did you know that in Obama's home state of Illinois and on the night he was elected, the winning number for the Pick 3 Lottery was 666? Maybe it was a sign.


RE: So long USA
By omnicronx on 12/10/2008 3:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
The odds of a pick 3 numbers ending up as 666 is around 50 times more likely than getting hit by lightning. Not exactly earth shattering.


RE: So long USA
By TomZ on 12/10/2008 3:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually heard an audio clip of Obama saying that "its been shown time and again that the economy is best off when the wealth is spread around".

That's fine with me, as long as "speading wealth around" is equated with consumer/business/government spending, not extortion.


Irony?
By Proteusza on 12/10/2008 10:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
Isnt it weird that there is all this pressure on the auto manufacturers for a measly $15 billion, while $700 billion was passed to the bankers (the ones who started all the trouble in the first place) with much less bother? No leadership changed at the banks, did it?




RE: Irony?
By FITCamaro on 12/10/2008 10:04:32 AM , Rating: 2
While I'm against the bailout (both that of the banks and the auto industry), I have one word for you.

sshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....


RE: Irony?
By King of Heroes on 12/10/2008 10:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
I suspect its because the media is not giving as much attention to this as they did the banking situation. Remember the entire 'mortgage crisis' was massively overblown by the media ('2nd Great Depression' was one of many terms used to describe it). This enflamed public opinion and kind of forced the government to throw out some kind of 'fix' that was big enough to appease the paranoia.

Theres a dimmer light being placed on the auto industry. This is kind of justified by polls stating that the American public does not want the auto industry getting a bailout (then again, the American public said the same thing about the bank bailout, but that got forced through anyway), mostly because they don't feel that the collapse of the 'Big 3' would adversely affect their everyday lives (I MIGHT be recalling this wrong, I'll have to verify if this was the actual conclusion). With that in mind, the government is in a better position to take their time in putting the screws onto the Big 3 executives.


RE: Irony?
By sweetsauce on 12/10/2008 10:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
Which makes me think that maybe we should investigate the portfolios of people in congress? I bet its heavily invested in the performance of the market, and very little if any investment in the performance of the automotive industry. You got to protect your own even if it damns the country right?


RE: Irony?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Irony?
By wushuktl on 12/10/2008 10:38:11 AM , Rating: 3
You scare me


RE: Irony?
By MrBlastman on 12/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Irony?
By Dreifort on 12/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Irony?
By MrBlastman on 12/10/2008 10:27:09 AM , Rating: 5
No suprise, seeing how Paulson was part of Goldilocks for so long, of course they are being biased towards the banks. :-\

It almost stinks as bad as the Illinois Governor.

But - these words from Obama, are also... no suprise to me at all. Typical socialist mentality. It is impressive how he makes zero mention about the Unions having to make some serious concessions and urgently need to change their attitudes.

Blame it on the CEO and the excutives (who should go down with the ship fyi), except in this case it would be unfair to just point at them, given how much the unions have hurt the big three over the years.

No, the Unions have to be fixed, asap. I say let the CEO's stick around for now. $1.00 is a good price to pay them - if they work hard, they can get a raise.


RE: Irony?
By sweetsauce on 12/10/2008 10:36:04 AM , Rating: 3
You can argue that they were forced, but they made these deals with the unions. If the deals don't allow them to operate, then they should go out of business. Someone will step in and not make the same mistakes they made. The union workers will be out of a job and then they'll learn that maybe they shouldn't expect things that 99% of the American workforce don't get from their employers. A new american car company will rise from the ashes, one that hopefully will have learned from its mistakes and be a better company.


RE: Irony?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Irony?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Irony?
By sgw2n5 on 12/10/2008 11:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
Go listen to Rush Limbaugh and be emo somewhere else.

Your tinfoil hat must have permanently slipped over your face if you still think Obama wasn't born in the US.

Congress as a whole has a very bad approval rating, yet each individual member in congress has a relatively high approval rating (even the remaining neo-cons) as compared to your boy, W.


RE: Irony?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 11:46:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your tinfoil hat must have permanently slipped over your face if you still think Obama wasn't born in the US.


No, no tinfoil had here. I don't believe we went to war to steal oil. And I don't believe our president set off bombs in New Orleans because he wanted to flood out all the "black people ".

I think you got the wrong party. The tin foil emo crowd is down the hall.


RE: Irony?
By Dreifort on 12/11/2008 3:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
just to put an end to the theroy that we went to war to steal oil in Iraq.

If that was the case, then WHY did president Bush appeal to OPEC to NOT cut production a few months ago? I thought we stole our own oil reserve?

Blaming the reason (whether right or wrong politically) on the war in Iraq on oil is the dumbest reason ever. That's like Rev. Wright blaming Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor because WE bombed them with the nuke.


RE: Irony?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 10:44:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It almost stinks as bad as the Illinois Governor.


Which one ? The 3 that were put in jail, or the latest canidate ? Making this 4 Illinois governors who have been jailed in the last 3 decades...


RE: Irony?
By MrBlastman on 12/10/2008 11:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
I am curious to see if there is a connection between the latest and our President Elect... Could be interesting indeed.

... and downright scary. Can you imagine Biden being President with Pelosi as VP?...

O_O


RE: Irony?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 11:39:36 AM , Rating: 1
We'll never see the connection. If there is one, the media will blanket it so fast it will be like it never existed. They have been covering for him since day one, and they sure as hell wont stop now.


RE: Irony?
By Dreifort on 12/11/2008 3:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think its funny how David Axelrod on Nov. 23 said Obama was working closely with Blagojevich on finding a successor to Obama's vacated Senate seat. Even mention how Obama has talked with the governor.

Then Blagojevich gets arrested.

Axelrod, "I was wrong. Obama never talked with the gov."

Then Obama, "I hardly know the man [Blagojevich]."

Then look at the group of ppl who worked CLOSELY and SUPPORTED Blagojevich over the past 8 yrs. Then look at the group of ppl who worked CLOSESLY with OBAMA over the past 2 yrs.

No, you're not seeing double...same group of ppl worked closely with both Obama and Blagojevich.

"I hardly know the man."

Does he expect us to believe him?????


RE: Irony?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2008 11:24:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is impressive how he makes zero mention about the Unions having to make some serious concessions and urgently need to change their attitudes.


Of course not. You think a guy that was living off Union payola in Illinois is going to say that ?


By hashish2020 on 12/10/2008 10:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
First off, Walmart has taken over 1 BILLION dollars from different levels of government in subsidies relative to their competitors WITHIN America
http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

Secondly, I live in China. Walmart is subsidized by the Chinese government in the following ways
1-Subsidy through export tax rebates (effectively exporter handouts)
2-Subsidy through undervalues Chinese RMB exchange rate
3-Subsidy through using the sheer strength of their size to play Chinese exporters against one another, and when they go under, Chinese workers (who already have NO rights...trust me...I have a CUSHY job here, and I get 3 sick days a year, no health insurance, and no reprieve for contract breaches) do not get backed pay, and when they protest, Walmart hires thugs who injure or kill them

So for all the people ranting about the free market here, can it and get out of your ignorant sheltered lives. Hell, learn some basic observational skills, and maybe some basic economic definitions.

Walmart is a monster of government handouts from two of the largest economies in the world, and by facilitating Chinese dumping on the US market, is a traitor to America, no matter how many guns they sell or Maxim magazines they ban.




By Reclaimer77 on 12/12/2008 12:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Walmart hires thugs who injure or kill them


*rolls eyes*

I've heard it all now. Next post someone will "reveal" Wal-Mart's secret weapons grade breeder reactor program.


By hashish2020 on 12/22/2008 8:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me---Wal Mart's SUPPLIERS. And those thugs are local corrupt police. The next time you live in China you should check out the realities of the factories in Guangdong province.

Nice how your weak ass reply completely ignores US government subsidies to Wal Mart and most importantly, yuan devaluation and the simple FACT that those who make your crap have no legal recourse for the VERY common tactics used by suppliers to breach contracts (ie shutting down a factory without paying backed wages and then opening up another supplier company a few months later)

How long did you live in China? And when.


Einstein was right. Socialism is the answer.
By reader1 on 12/10/2008 11:40:36 AM , Rating: 1
Globalization will continue to force the US to adopt socialist practices. US companies won't be able to compete globally against companies that are heavily supported by their governments. Free health care will be a requirement.

The drive to be successful will come from the desire to dominate globally. A large scale free market will have the same effect on the world as the domestic free market had on the US.




RE: Einstein was right. Socialism is the answer.
By BansheeX on 12/10/2008 1:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Bullcrap, if foreign countries use forced redistributions to artificially lower prices in an attempt to beat ours, let them. That's a cheaper cost of living for our producers courtesy of their idiotic governments, which negates any loss they would experience in wages. Friedman proved this a long time ago. Socialism can't work, it fails everywhere. It failed in China before they became more like Hong Kong, it failed in India before they abandoned it in 1970, and it failed the USSR.

Nobody spends money more with more thrift than its earner, the earner will not waste something he expended effort to obtain. A politician can't be more thrifty, he's merely controlling an appropriation of what someone else worked for. Furthermore, if everyone is promised an equal share of the pot regardless of effort, there is no reason to work harder than the laziest worker. This is BASIC economics, basic human behavior, and it echoes throughout history. This argument is long over and we would do well to stop expanding government control of capital year over year over year and hire a damn libertarian for once before it all collapses.


By hashish2020 on 12/10/2008 11:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
How did he "prove it wrong"?

You do realize that you cannot prove something wrong based on the made up assertion that consumers are rational

Empirical evidence has proven over and over again that theories based on the rational consumer are as logical as phrenology


In that case
By munim on 12/10/2008 10:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
Get rid of the Board of Directors as well since they don't know how to hire good management. Something tells me that won't happen...




RE: In that case
By eye smite on 12/10/2008 3:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I was commenting on this the other day about management at the big 3. The top execs are typical money hungry exploitation experts.lol

That's why foreign car companies own the market now days.


Why?
By svenkesd on 12/10/2008 11:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
The company that owns a majority of Chrysler is NOT willing to bail them out!

Why should anybody else?

W doesn't even want the owners held responsible for a govmnt loan even though the owners would rather see Chrysler fail than throw any more of their own money down that rat hole.

That pisses me off.




The Audacity of Audacity
By fishbits on 12/10/2008 11:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
Begun, the War on Employers has.

Last I heard, Obama planned on spending more than the treasury takes in. Guess he's going to punish auto industry leaders for lacking his ability to print their own money. Make too much money? Obama's gonna getcha! Make too little money? Obama's gonna getcha! Best bet? Be a company of the size and profitability level "strongly suggested" by central planning. Or pay enough protection money in the form of campaign donations that your earnings and profits aren't deemed excessive (trial lawyers, entertainment industry).

Barney Frank cost taxpayers mega-billions by driving the financial industry into a ditch while enriching his lover in the process, but he still has a job and isn't made to grovel in Senate hearings. But the people that support him demand to determine who runs private-sector businesses? Scary stuff.




To the Slaughterhouse
By bubbastrangelove on 12/10/2008 4:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the Federal Reserve Act, which itself is unconstitutional, does not authorize the Fed to buy up private assets with its magic checkbook. We're way past the "omg it's unconstitutional" point, the population is too dumb to pay any attention to the money rules within it that enable all this


While 'dumb' does fit the bill in many circumstances there's also the issue that our government being largely a corrupt monopoly which represents it's citizens in rhetoric only.

An overwhelming majority of us do not want the bail out. Does it make a difference? An overwhelming majority of us does not want amnesty for illegal immigrants. Does that make a difference? Congresses and our presidents approval rating are at record lows. Does it make a difference?

No, it doesn't. The examples are endless.

Nothing short of civil unrest will get the government to sit up and pay attention to what the citizens want and break the cycle of "we know what's best for you". Unfortunately the majority of the population are far too domesticated for that to ever happen.

Our government treats us no better than a farmer treats it's livestock which is being prepared for slaughter and profit.

Those bums are supposed to be working for us.




Opposite ends of the spectrum...
By maven81 on 12/11/2008 8:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting that this discussion of GM turned into a discussion about Walmart since the reason GM failed, and the reason Walmart succeeded seem to be a complete contradiction.
Taking into account that not all imports are cheaper then GM cars, and quite a few are more expensive, GM is an example where the US consumer picked the better more expensive product over the cheaper inferior one. Even when this wasn't the case I think most of you would agree that GM was beaten by more or less superior products.
Walmart is an example of US consumers picking the cheaper inferior product.
I find it appalling that quite a few people don't see a problem with this. Some even think that this is somehow par for the course in a "post industrial" society as they put it. They seem to forget the big picture. Forget supermarkets and mom and pop stores for a second. Walmart is destroying American manufacturing, period. Don't forget they also sell electronics, apparel, and a million other things. If they force local manufacturers to sell to them at lower prices, that invariably cuts corners in quality. Those that survive produce inferior products. Those that don't tend to go out of business.

Now as a consumer, if you don't base your decision solely on price, you have lost two things, quality, and choice. And while I see a lot of people willing to give up quality, I worry that so many are also willing to give up choice. Say for whatever reason I wanted to buy an American made bike in walmart. Tough luck, they'd rather sell you cheap Chinese crap. Same with numerous other things.
What if you want something not in their inventory? If you're in a small town, tough luck!
Not only did you sacrifice on quality, but now you're forced to buy what they offer.




By FPP on 12/16/2008 12:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
What corpration has Obama ever run? What makes him fit to opine on ANY corporation's operation, even Countrywide Mortgage?




What about the others?
By RoberTx on 12/17/2008 7:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi have done the same to our economy, why should they stay?




"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki