jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (50 posts)

GM

  1. The Shark profile image59
    The Sharkposted 8 years ago

    Should the government give GM Back?
    The Shark

    1. curiozities profile image61
      curiozitiesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.

  2. nicomp profile image59
    nicompposted 8 years ago

    Hasn't the Obama administration done enough to us already? Let the UAW keep it; they'll run it into the ground soon enough.

    1. getpaidtopost profile image61
      getpaidtopostposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I second that. let them burn if they can not manage it.

    2. curiozities profile image61
      curiozitiesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Remember the '80's movie "Gung Ho" with Michael Keaton?  I can see that happening.

  3. profile image0
    excellasysposted 8 years ago

    I doubt there will be much to give back.

    1. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      You never know. They can't make the new Camero fast enough.

  4. janni321 profile image60
    janni321posted 8 years ago

    A last try. Yes

  5. puppascott profile image74
    puppascottposted 8 years ago

    GM as we know it is already gone. It's run by a failing union and a corrupt government. There's a business model for the ages. Too bad there going to stick us with the check.

    1. getpaidtopost profile image61
      getpaidtopostposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      How right you are puppascott. o well being part of a failing company is better than no company. wink

      1. The Shark profile image59
        The Sharkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Wrong!! Not when the wrong co's money comes from you and me as an endless supply.
        The Shark---saying give GM back

        1. getpaidtopost profile image61
          getpaidtopostposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Did you not see the wink, It was sarcasm. big_smile must be the British whit.

  6. ledefensetech profile image69
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Let em keep it, GM is a corpse on life support.  The sooner we cut it off the better.

  7. vkent7441 profile image54
    vkent7441posted 8 years ago

    Just like Ford... it is an Icon in many ways, they should leave it alone and just let them do what they're going to do on their own.

  8. etb50 profile image60
    etb50posted 8 years ago

    What happen to America being the land of the free, that means free to succeed or free to fail. If a company is failing, then that means that the product is not being demanded by the people, which means that the company should fail since people do not want their product. This is a Free market society, the government never should have taken GM in the first place, so I think they should give it back to the people, and if the people want it, then it will succeed, but if they don't want it, let it fail, new companies will come along and take their place, with a better product that people want. This is the basis of a free market society.

    1. ledefensetech profile image69
      ledefensetechposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Heh, we haven't been a free market society for almost a century.

      1. etb50 profile image60
        etb50posted 8 years ago in reply to this

        America was built off a basis of a free market, and for the most part is the biggest free market in the world, obviously there is no such thing as an actual "free market", but we are as close as it gets, with the exception of this GM problem.

        1. ledefensetech profile image69
          ledefensetechposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Today our economy is much more akin to that seen in Germany or Italy in the 1930's.  Such luminaries as FDR and Churchill praised Mussolini for his actions on behalf of big business.  Political battles these days are all about who gets to control the economy, because he who controls the economy can use it to garner the votes needed to say in power.

          1. etb50 profile image60
            etb50posted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Im talking about 2009 not 1930, for the current world, we have the biggest free market, a free market is a market controlled by the people, which we do have, the government only has two main ways to make money taxes and money printing. This means that the rest of Americas GDP is from the private free market, and im talking about the current market.

            1. ledefensetech profile image69
              ledefensetechposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Your confusion is understandable, this is what happens when they don't teach history correctly in school.  Far be it from be to say it's a conspiracy, but...  The current market is as fascist or controlled as it gets without being Communist.  The only difference is rather than make everyone poorer like Communism, it makes certain people better off at the expense of others.  Like union workers vs stockbrokers for instance. 

              People haven't controlled this market since at least 1913.

              1. etb50 profile image60
                etb50posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                right well... that's your opinion, mine is that its a free market so the government should not have control over GM.

                1. ledefensetech profile image69
                  ledefensetechposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  It's not opinion, it's fact.  Anytime a people lose control of the monetary system, they get screwed by the people who do have control over the money.  If you were taught history in school, you'd know that.

                  1. The Shark profile image59
                    The Sharkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi Indefense, we lost it when we lost the schools to the unions, and the news media to the unions and liberals
                    The Shark

  9. Misha profile image73
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Thanks for the giggles etb. lol Would you bother to look around? Where did you see a free market? Please, show us at least one example of a free market in US. smile

    1. etb50 profile image60
      etb50posted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I see a free market in America  because you can start your own business and run it how you would like. that is a free market, where as a planned market is when the government controls what is being produced,and in what quantity, and you would not be able so start up your own company with any product u like... basic economics.

      1. Misha profile image73
        Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Rilly? What about licensing? Minimal wages? Social and health insurance? trade unions?

        Are you blind?

        1. etb50 profile image60
          etb50posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          As i said in one of my previous posts... there is no such thing as a FULLY free market, there is no such things a fully anything in economics, everything is mixed. Im just saying that I think that America is overall a free market in comparison to a planned economy. therefore i do not belive that the government should have control over GM, and they should let it fail if thats what the people want. (this GM situations an example of a planned society, not a free market, and thats why im against it)

          1. ledefensetech profile image69
            ledefensetechposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Yet if you have a mixed market, you start down that slippery slope to a controlled economy.  The economic history of the US shows that over the last century.  The only reason we're better off than the rest of the world is because we adopted those policies later than the rest of the world and we've also had a push for free markets in this country that you really don't see anywhere else.  Although some of the new Eastern European economies might be trying more free market economics, they still have the legacy of Communism to overcome.

            Any controlled economy will inevitably become a controlled one.  There is no half-and-half.  Sooner or later, we too, will have a fully controlled economy with all the evil that entails.

      2. ledefensetech profile image69
        ledefensetechposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Actually you can't.  You're forced to pay a certain wage, you're forced to pay into Social Security and Medicare/Medicaide.  Most places make you register a business name, report your sales, etc.  Oh yeah, you also have to pay into unemployment insurance and workman's comp insurance.  They're getting ready to force businesses to buy health insurance.  Do you know where all of that comes from?  The profits you'd otherwise see if your a business owner or the salary you'd make if you're a worker in a business.  What exactly is free about any of that.

        1. etb50 profile image60
          etb50posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          It is free because you choose the product that you would like to make. where as in a planned economy you are told the product that you are going to make... basic economics, im looking at the situation from a economic view, not a historical view.

          1. ledefensetech profile image69
            ledefensetechposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Economics and history are intertwined.  Economics is the study of the effects of choices people make.  History is the study of decisions people have made through time.  They're pretty much inseparable.

            1. etb50 profile image60
              etb50posted 8 years ago in reply to this

              so then where are you missing the fact that :

              Free market - you choose the product you want to produce - you can do this in the United States

              Planned Market - The government tells you what you have to produce- for the most part not happening in the states (other than the GM problem, which is why im against it)

              Therefore by looking at the two options the United States is more of a free market. Now im not saying it is a perfect free market, but i am saying that it is more under the category of free market than planned market.

              Overall this is the reason I think GM should be left to fail. because if the people dont want it, then why keep it.

              1. Misha profile image73
                Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                free market
                n.
                An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

                The American HeritageĀ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright Ā©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

                1. etb50 profile image60
                  etb50posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't say the definition of a free market is you choose the product you want to produce, i said that is what happens in a free market.

                  1. Misha profile image73
                    Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL I am trying to get across the point that HOW to produce it much more important characteristic of "freeness" of the market than WHAT to produce. What is important too of course, but without how what means nothing smile

          2. Misha profile image73
            Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            Actually in planned economy you can't have business at all - it is a felony smile

            1. etb50 profile image60
              etb50posted 8 years ago in reply to this

              It has the manufacturing and movement of goods, ergo causing it to be a market. the business is just the government, one big business  moving goods around.

              1. Misha profile image73
                Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                yes, and YOU have no business opening a business, so nobody will bother telling you what to produce smile

      3. The Shark profile image59
        The Sharkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with ETB, we have never had the gov't intervene with a private company with a hostile take over. Make no mistake, GM was a hostile take over. For the first time in US history non secured creditors have taken a front seat to secured creditors. This is leading to a law suit by Indiana Funds, they were secured but left out in the cold. Obama is taking us down dangerous paths. Ford was smart and stayed away from the poisionous apple.
        Next on the take over list is our health care system. God knows what "cap and spend" is going to cost us. They didn't add that word spend into the bill for fun.
        The Shark

  10. Misha profile image73
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    No question about letting GM fail, here we agree. smile

    Yet American market currently is probably a bit more free than in North Korea, but less free than say in China smile

  11. Misha profile image73
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Cool, glad we sorted it out smile

  12. Misha profile image73
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    LOL Shark, we already settled the case with Etb smile

  13. N. Ramius profile image81
    N. Ramiusposted 8 years ago

    I'm still gonna buy Toyota until they disappoint me but if I were to buy an American car it would be a Ford. I got no plan on ever owning a GM vehicle.

  14. profile image55
    untiedshoelaceposted 8 years ago

    The government shouldn't have interfered in the beginning. Our country needs a small republic back. Let GM fail and move on with your life. The problem in America is that we have so many car choices. People turn to foreign made cars because they have better ratings and are safer and more reliable. Why doesn't GM discontinue some models and make the rest better. It's not about quantity, but quality. (I own a Mazda3 and love it.)

    1. The Shark profile image59
      The Sharkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Well actually you are incorrect about ratings and safety. According to JD Powers Ford surpassed Toyota in customer satisfaction. Ford is also the only mfg that has a veh. that has rec'd the govts 5 star rating in all crashes, side, rear front, and roll as well as passenger safety, not in it's classs, (as most mfg announce) but overall---period. Ford also has a veh that was just nominated "car of the world". Toyota has better quality is an image thing that has perpetuated itself since they had better quality back in the late 70's early 80's.  One of my Ford vehicles has 302,000 mi on it. The car looks and runs great.

  15. puppascott profile image74
    puppascottposted 8 years ago

    This has nothing to do with history, safety or quality. This has to do with the fact the government wants to control what we drive, when we drive and what we fuel it with. Global warming and the Eco-Chic are going to drive the U.S. automotive industry into the ground. If you haven't noticed phrases like "These are the cars Americans want," or "The car built for everyone," or "This is what the people want" in automotive media you have your head in the sand.

    1. The Shark profile image59
      The Sharkposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Correct I was replying to previous response claiming Toyota builds better quality and safety. I was making a case for buying Ford, the only real "American" car.
      I think Obama moved the CAFF standard up by 4 years to make it difficult for Ford. They can just write the checks necessary for GM and force them to build the toy cars to meet the standard.
      But Ford, not taking govt money and struggling to survive said this 4 year move up could cost them 4 to 6 thosand per sticker in r&d costs. This could break them, then Obama would be there to "save these jobs" thereby owning Ford and dictating what they can build too.
      Then they can tell Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc what we will allow to be sold in the US, hence he has everyone on board in Gore cars. Hey, I like the sound of that "Gore Cars". Let's see if we can get that to stick around the hub.

      The Shark---saying I don't want to drive a Gore Car

      1. puppascott profile image74
        puppascottposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Shark,

        I just reread my comment and it did sound rather confrontational. I apologize. When I made the comment about having your head in the sand, that was a general statement, not pointed directly at you. I'd have to be daft to go fussing with a Shark.

        Scott

 
working