Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

C-in-C or Micro-rmanager?Follow

#27REDACTED, Posted: Mar 31 2009 at 7:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Samy,
#28 Mar 31 2009 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Samy,

Quote:
Other nations manage it. Odd, that.


Other nations call on the US if they need a real military.

No nation's "called on" the US for military assistance.
#29 Mar 31 2009 at 7:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not since the 40's, anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Mar 31 2009 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
**
907 posts
Elinda wrote:
Nobby wrote:
Deadbeet wrote:
managetorial(sp?)
When you invent a new word, you can spell it how the fUck you like
The result of merging the management division with the janitorial unit?

Managitors sign the pay-checks and clean the toilets. Huge cost savings.


managerial yeah, i fail at spelling :(
#31REDACTED, Posted: Mar 31 2009 at 8:09 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophiel,
#32 Mar 31 2009 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hangtennow wrote:
I'm quite sure Kuwait and Israel are grateful for the US military aparatus.
No doubt. Which is different from them requesting our intervention. Did Kuwait ask us to come over? I had forgotten about them (so I may have been wrong with my '40s remark) although I thought that was more of a global "We gotta do something" with or without Kuwait's request.

Anyway, back to GM, I was reading a blog article about GM's problems and how they were a long ways coming. He posits that the problem isn't so much the unions now (not that they don't have room to compromise) but that, in the 1950's GM was happy to cut these deals with the unions where they'd pay lower wages then for sizable retirement/pension/health care packages down the line. It was an immediate gain for an eventual cost. The bill has been building up for the last couple decades though and it's getting too heavy for GM to bear. But GM wasn't bullied into those agreements in the 1950's -- they picked the option that gave them the most immediate gratification.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33REDACTED, Posted: Mar 31 2009 at 9:29 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophiel,
#34 Mar 31 2009 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Jophiel,

So why should the american taxpayers fund companies that have made poor business decisions? And round we go.


Did you miss the last 6 months or so?

Spoiler Alert!
Because it is better than the alternative.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#35 Mar 31 2009 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
In point of fact, yes, Kuwait did ask us-- repeatedly, actually --to defend them militarily. During my brief sojourn there during that war the Kuwaitis were quite demonstrative in their affection towards us. Reminded many of us of the stories our uncles, fathers, and grandfathers told us of winning World War 2 and the overflowing gratitude of the freed citizens upon the Allies entering recaptured cities. It was a very wonderful moment for both the military and George Bush Sr.

Indeed, it may have been a motive for Dubya to recreate or duplicate the circumstances of the first Gulf War. Who knows?

Totem
#36 Mar 31 2009 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hangtennow wrote:
So why should the american taxpayers fund companies that have made poor business decisions?
Same reason I gave last fall: without the US automotive industry, heavy manufacturing in the United States is largely dead and I don't think that's a good thing. I'm open to other suggestions on how to keep domestic heavy manufacturing alive but that's my biggest issue with it.

There's also the matter of ~260,000 people losing their jobs (and effects on supporting businesses) but that's actually secondary in my mind. Not that it's unimportant, it just doesn't rank at the top.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Mar 31 2009 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
In point of fact, yes, Kuwait did ask us-- repeatedly, actually --to defend them militarily.
I stand corrected then. Thanks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38REDACTED, Posted: Mar 31 2009 at 10:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#39 Mar 31 2009 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Because I think that having ready heavy manufacturing facilities in the United States serves our national interests.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Mar 31 2009 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Looking to Unionisation and workers' benefits as a cause for the Big 3's failures is like blaming someone's Acne for their death in a train wreck.

There are two simple reasons why the US Automotive industry is down the toilet:
1: Crap quality
2: Nobody's buying cars

I'm sure someone can argue that unionisation defended indefensibly shoddy workmanship, but in Europe, US cars are defined by the anecdotes of dealers taking delivery of US cars with a half-eaten sammich and an empty coke bottle in the foot well despite the "Quality Control" sticker on the window.

That and they become confused by any road that isn't as straight as s straight thing that's just been straightened.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#41 Mar 31 2009 at 11:49 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Nobby wrote:
Looking to Unionisation and workers' benefits as a cause for the Big 3's failures is like blaming someone's Acne for their death in a train wreck.

There are two simple reasons why the US Automotive industry is down the toilet:
1: Crap quality
2: Nobody's buying cars

I'm sure someone can argue that unionisation defended indefensibly shoddy workmanship, but in Europe, US cars are defined by the anecdotes of dealers taking delivery of US cars with a half-eaten sammich and an empty coke bottle in the foot well despite the "Quality Control" sticker on the window.

That and they become confused by any road that isn't as straight as s straight thing that's just been straightened.
I think the term 'planned obsolescence' was coined with American Car manufacturers.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#42 Mar 31 2009 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Yeah, but Smash, the UAW-- and the CEOs of their respective automobile companies --killed the goose that laid the golden eggs long ago, in the mid-60's I seem to recall.


Popular myth, completely false, of course, but popular.


Oh, it seemed like a good idea at the time from their perspective, I'm sure. But quotas, early retirement pensions, health care until the grave, shoddy workmanship, institutionalized and purposeful early obsolesence of their product, and the car business in general selling to the American consumer vehicles without a view to the future (Hummers and SUVs for example). Add to that shareholders who got used to quarterly financials rather than yearly and the immediacy of profits NOW overrode any commonsense towards the long view.


I must have missed the part where AFL-CIO was put in charge of accounting and vehicle design by GM. When did that occur, '67? '68?


This crisis is a long time in coming-- and I come from a family that hails from Detroit. While I am sympathetic to auto industry workers, their's is a legacy born from excess and greed 40+ years ago.


No, theirs is a legacy born from a lack of solidarity in the American working class. Labor's made mistakes, to be sure, but it's "failings" in the US are about 97% attributable to the average working class American being selfish and incapable of seeing the long term value of collective bargaining as their only means of competing on a level playing field with the wealthy. The BIG LIE that wealth is the result of hard work in the US sells well, and not only to the wealthy.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#43REDACTED, Posted: Mar 31 2009 at 2:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#44REDACTED, Posted: Mar 31 2009 at 2:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smashed,
#45 Mar 31 2009 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

You're a fool. Over 90% of millionaires in this country are first generation. Don't try and sell the lie that wealth is something your born into or something that's granted based on the colour of your skin.


If you are under the impression that $1,000,000 is the threshold for wealth, you're a lot fucking stupider than I would have ever imagined.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Mar 31 2009 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
I say retool GM plants to manufacture windmills, but I'm one of the tiny minority of people that think a hillside dotted with modern windmills looks ******* cool.

Seriously, though, it'd help the energy crisis and give 'em something productive to do while they wallow in Chaper 11 this summer.
#47 Mar 31 2009 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You're a fool. Over 90% of millionaires in this country are first generation. Don't try and sell the lie that wealth is something your born into or something that's granted based on the colour of your skin.


If you are under the impression that $1,000,000 is the threshold for wealth, you're a lot fucking stupider than I would have ever imagined.



Just curious, cause I know you are right, but I can't find any numbers on anything more than "million"aire.

Like maybe the percent of people worth over 10 million who are first generation? All the data seems to be at this 1,000,000USD threshold.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#48 Mar 31 2009 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
catwho the Pest wrote:
I say retool GM plants to manufacture windmills, but I'm one of the tiny minority of people that think a hillside dotted with modern windmills looks @#%^ing cool.


Interesting note. The company I work for has been about 80-85% automotive since the 80s. We did have some office furniture work, but that wasn't very big. Some of our newest jobs we are getting are for Windspires
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#49 Mar 31 2009 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
As in, have $1,000,000 income a year that you don't have to work for? That's wealth. Owning a $1,000,000 in assets after a life-time of working 40-60 hours a week? That's something pretty much every middle-class Aussie does. But the latter is a "millionaire" by the old definition. Inflation has not been kind to the definition of "millionaire" as a standard of wealth.

Not when said millionaire at 65 owns a modest 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house out in the suburbs, a car, and some compulsory Superannuation savings that will get them AU$20,000 a year (US$13,000) of their own funds to live on in retirement IF they are lucky with interest rates and dividends.




Edited, Mar 31st 2009 7:25pm by Aripyanfar
#50 Mar 31 2009 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I believe it's net worth Ari. Which means that house they bought 10 years ago for $250,000 that's gone up to $1.25 mil is helping to account for that.

Of course, there's the possibility that I could be wrong, but I'll never acknowledge it if I am.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#51 Mar 31 2009 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

As in, have $1,000,000 income a year that you don't have to work for?


Hahaha, no. It's a statistic created, by design, to appeal to drooling simpletons. It's meaningless. People who are less well off then their parents in real terms can (and do) become "millionaires" simply through inflation.

The highest correlation for having $50M+ in assets is *by a massive margin* being born to parents with more than $50M.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 272 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (272)