Michigan Radio News

NPR News

« Interview: Patrick Anderson - 10/30/2008 | Main | Interview: Bernie Porn - 10/31/2008 »

October 30, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Anderson's analysis is a protrait one would expect from a consultant looking for a new client. The way defeat excess capacity and excel in a saturated market is to build a superior product that can compete in an excess market.

Anderson's script is a set up for a GM purchase and the destruction of the blue collar worker in this state. Anderson's report is a surrender.

Anderson is no friend of the union or worker in the state his 911 history is not relevant to the destruction he has scripted on workers here in Michigan..

One might ask Greg Thrasher where have the restraints associated with union contracts and government-imposed CAFE standards gotten us?

A recent spike in fuel prices did more to slow the consumption of gasoline than a decade's worth of CAFE standards.

And long before any of us start to blame any unnamed, unidentified "bad executives" at the U.S. automakers (remembering that Toyota recently embarked on a billion-dollar project to build a large pickup truck for the U.S. market), I wonder about the furloughed UAW members who are paid to show up at factory-sponsored halls, to check in, watch tv and stare at each other's resumes, before checking out and going home for the day. Sure , GM is going to close the Janesville truck plant, and that's a shame because they built damned good vehicles there, the GMC Yukon and Chevy Tahoe. But come the end of December, when those workers stop working, they will still be collecting paychecks for a long time to come, thanks to their Union contract. That is a very tough way for GM to do business. Paying former workers for not building light trucks.

The U.S. automakers do pretty nicely selling cars in other parts of the world, and making a profit. As for why they can't do better in the U.S., it would be good to start with the federal government and the UAW.

The fans on the turbine go 'round and 'round...

Profit created by workers pays for thier benefits, pensions and the like...

Stop making excuses for failed leadership and corporate incompetence..

Thrasher, you say that "profit" pays for worker benefits.

What do "losses" pay for? Who pays for "losses"? Does anyone (anyone who isn't working for a large state university or other governmental agency, that is) get paid out of "losses"?

What do shareholders get?

If companies don't produce for their shareholders, who would want the equity shares? What kind of investments should the pension funds of the UAW, the MEA, the AAUP (TIAA-Creff, etc.), the Teamsters and AFSCME make? Should they invest in corporations and market funds that make (dare I say it?) profits?

Anon,

Shareholders get nothing if the workers cannot create products that make profits for the corporations..

Losses are the outcome of incompetent managers and corporate leaders who lack the vision to create a market for thier products to make a profit for shareholders...

You do not understand the basics of a market economy BTW those workers who you have no problem trashing and tossing them under the trucks they build also BUY the products as well..

Shareholders are a part of the equation no one is compelling them to risk thier capital in the equity markets..workers have risks as well as the sharholders in truth all parties in the marketplace have roles to play including the taxpayer aka government..

Anon,

Shareholders get nothing if the workers cannot create products that make profits for the corporations..

Losses are the outcome of incompetent managers and corporate leaders who lack the vision to create a market for thier products to make a profit for shareholders...

You do not understand the basics of a market economy BTW those workers who you have no problem trashing and tossing them under the trucks they build also BUY the products as well..

Shareholders are a part of the equation no one is compelling them to risk thier capital in the equity markets..workers have risks as well as the sharholders in truth all parties in the marketplace have roles to play including the taxpayer aka government..

Anon,

Shareholders get nothing if the workers cannot create products that make profits for the corporations..

Losses are the outcome of incompetent managers and corporate leaders who lack the vision to create a market for thier products to make a profit for shareholders...

You do not understand the basics of a market economy BTW those workers who you have no problem trashing and tossing them under the trucks they build also BUY the products as well..

Shareholders are a part of the equation no one is compelling them to risk thier capital in the equity markets..workers have risks as well as the sharholders in truth all parties in the marketplace have roles to play including the taxpayer aka government..

Anon,

Shareholders get nothing if the workers cannot create products that make profits for the corporations..

Losses are the outcome of incompetent managers and corporate leaders who lack the vision to create a market for thier products to make a profit for shareholders...

You do not understand the basics of a market economy BTW those workers who you have no problem trashing and tossing them under the trucks they build also BUY the products as well..

Shareholders are a part of the equation no one is compelling them to risk thier capital in the equity markets..workers have risks as well as the sharholders in truth all parties in the marketplace have roles to play including the taxpayer aka government..

The merger has nothing to do with increasing shareholder value or even Anderson's analysis of decreasing excess capacity, although that would be a secondary benefit to the merger. On the face of it, a merger seems ridiculous. Two big red balance sheets added together equal even a larger big red number. Who is that going to benefit?

This is really about survival. In the environment where three players exist in the market, you can allow one to fail and still end up with a duopoly, which in the DOJ's mind, is not a monopoly. Duopolies are allowed to exist and thrive (e.g. Coke and Pepsi). This is why the merger makes sense, only from the point of view that it forces the government to bail out the duopoly.

So, improve industry structure, force the taxpayers to pay for it, and screw over the little guys in the process. It's a great plan.

The duopoly is a surrender not a retreat I am against the merger because it does not resolve the essential questions of competition, superior products, increasing market share..

The so-called little guys need to get off thier whinning pitiful arses and make some noise about the worth and value of thier interests...

American taxpayers have a long history of bailing out people and nations ( marshall plan)and of course building entire countries while our interior is crumbling..

Wake up Jack - GM or the US Auto industry doesn't need or want more models, brands, production, retirees or dealers and nor do they really care enough to take a bullet by keeping any these C folks employed. If the lights just went out once and for all Chrysler, that would be great with GM (and Ford), and so it should be.
The only thing that scares the crap out of GM and Ford is the possibility that a Chinese car company could buy Chrysler, scrap all domestic production, slap the Chrysler name plate on their Chinese made cars and have an instant dealer network. If the taxpayers can be conned into paying for this they’re all over it

The comments to this entry are closed.

A Production of

***UPDATE 9/2/09: Read the user agreement, effective immediately.***

The Podcast

RSS

April 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30