Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a silly claim - you say the job losses at GM were so high BECAUSE they took the government bailout. Your lack of logic is laughable.
Their situation wasn't dire BECAUSE they took the government money. The were forced to take the government money BECAUSE their situation was so dire. They were in deep trouble BEFORE they took the government money (and no one else would loan them money) That's WHY they resorted to taking goverment money. .
An apple doesn't fall from a tree BECAUSE it hits the ground. It hits the ground BECAUSE it falls from the tree.
Logic is your friend.
I suggest you USE it.
I did not say why they had the job losses. Just gave the board the numbe rof job losses.
Ford lost 60,000 GM lost 228000. One took the bail out one did not. Sorry you can not see those facts.
I suggest you use the facts and your logic.
I see you can not argue the facts and insted try to personally attack me.
Typical of the left.
Ken
did not say why they had the job losses. Just gave the board the numbe rof job losses.
Ford lost 60,000 GM lost 228000. One took the bail out one did not. Sorry you can not see those facts.
I see you can not argue the facts and instead try to attack me.
Typical of the left.
The facts of the job loss are facts.
All companies borrow money. Ford did not take governement Bail out
And GM wouldn't have needed the government bailout if it's management had had the foresight to borrow money when Ford did. It really just came down to luck and a bad decision by GM not to borrow money earlier (when it was still available).
did not say why they had the job losses. Just gave the board the numbe rof job losses.
Ford lost 60,000 GM lost 228000. One took the bail out one did not. Sorry you can not see those facts.
I see you can not argue the facts and instead try to attack me.
Typical of the left.
The facts of the job loss are facts.
And BOTH had massive job losses.
GM's losses were worse because they WAITED longer to address the problem (and hence it grew worse) - NOT because they took government money.
And GM wouldn't have needed the government bailout if it's management had had the foresight to borrow money when Ford did. It really just came down to luck and a bad decision by GM not to borrow money earlier (when it was still available).
What's your point?
Ken
I am pretty sure that the discussion went down the road of "lay-offs" because somebody that supports the government bailout policy then criticized Ford for how many employees they laid off.
The poster you have been responding to was simply presenting the facts that GM infact laid off MORE workers than Ford.
Now, you are trying to make a claim that his/her response with facts are not logical because they don't matter.
Why didn't you take that position when Ford was being critized 2 pages ago??
And GM wouldn't have needed the government bailout if it's management had had the foresight to borrow money when Ford did. It really just came down to luck and a bad decision by GM not to borrow money earlier (when it was still available).
What's your point?
Ken
So they both borrowed money. Why is Ford doing well and the other two are not? Borrowing money at the wrong or right time was not the reason for their failures.
GM & Chrysler did more than just borrow money. They allowed the government to control every aspect of their business, they allowed the government to screw the initial creditors/investors by giving a major stake in the companies to the unions.
I said, right before the Obama Administration decieded to implement full blown socalism by taking over General Motors that they should have allowed that company to fail. I also stated that the vaccum caused by the collapse of GM would lead to big gains in other auto manufacturers. Demand doesn't decrease just because a company disappears. With all domestic manufacturers struggling, obviously there is less demand than supply.
I got thrown under the bus by the Obama kool-aid drinkers here.
Hmm.. looks like afterall, Ford would have done EVEN better if GM would have folded. So... since Ford picked up some extra sales in Q3, does that mean that GM lost sales. I am guessing yes, which also tells me that we should be hearing news shortly that GM needs even more government money.
I was right on the first, Ill bet I am also right on the second. So... how long before GM is crying they are going to collapse without more money? I say 4 months.
I think anyone who would have wanted to buy a new car were thinking twice about GM, after all, their CEO said even w/bailout, there was no guarantee against the company not going into bankruptcy. I know if I were a car buyer, that would have been one of my considerations, would the company be around long enough to provide parts-service-repairs if needed, before it fell apart? I'm agreeing with you, I think alot of GM prospective buyers went over to Fords, and, we can't blame them at all.
GM has always had meddlings/dealings with Uncle Sam. In the first or infant stages and days of public transportation, GM was trying to cuttroat the rail transportation industry as well as street car transportation.
And BOTH had massive job losses.
GM's losses were worse because they WAITED longer to address the problem (and hence it grew worse) - NOT because they took government money.
Those ARE the facts.
Ken
Complete hogwash. Those are not the facts...at all.
Revisionist history...yes.
Obviously, Ford took the steps needed in the business model and restructuring, which included layoffs to once again become profitable.
GM and Chrysler were prevented from doing that by the government bailout. The problems they had before have not gone away.
I am pretty sure that the discussion went down the road of "lay-offs" because somebody that supports the government bailout policy then criticized Ford for how many employees they laid off.
The poster you have been responding to was simply presenting the facts that GM infact laid off MORE workers than Ford.
Now, you are trying to make a claim that his/her response with facts are not logical because they don't matter.
No - the poster was making the *ss-backwards claim that somehow GM's massive layoffs were somehow BECAUSE of the government money (see they stuff in RED) below - which is a completely ILLOGICAL claim. GM was going to have to lay off so many folks whether they took government money or not - NOT BECAUSE they took the government money. This displays a COMPLETE lack of logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet
Give me Fortd which did not take the money and lost 45000 jobs
Appears the bailout did not save jobs at GM appears the free market limited the job loss at ford.
So yes give me a free market job loss of 60000 compared to 228000 at GM which took the money.
seems the free market can handle it better then big government another example of why some of us are scared to death by governement run healthcare
BOTH companies had massive jobs losses because of the Free Market - not because of government money.
Ford's losses were simply less because Ford's managment was better prepared for the crises - having borrowed money from the private sector when it was still available and having made cuts and restructuring their plant and operations earlier on (thereby limiting the damage of recession). GM simply wait too long to do so (as is the case in the Free Market sometimes) - and then when they DID move to correct the situation and borrow the money necessary to get them through the crises (until sales picked up again) the credit markets were all locked up and unable/unwilling to lend.
It's as simple as that. GM's woes were not BECAUSE THEY GOVERNMENT MONEY. They took government money BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE WOULD LOAN IT TO THEM. This delay in action on GM's part is the reason their job losses were so much more large than those at Ford - not because the took government money.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 11-02-2009 at 09:34 AM..
It is amazing isn't it? Some know how to get the job done, obviously Ford is doing something right. I just wish I owned about a thousand shares of stock in them, like my daughter and her husband do...Damn!!! Of course you need the money to buy the stock, maybe that is why we don't own it...
Maybe the Government should loan you the money to invest in FMC with the condition that you invest in FMC.
Ford has always been my favourite brand. It does almost everything well,the full opposite of GM...
The Expedition / XL is the best SUV in the world...
I wish that Ford continues its success & that the gov lets GM to go bankrupt.They deserve so...
Yeah but . . GM invented product diversity - 10 different brands with all the same innards.
A rainbow coalition of products. High on profit-drugs staring at rainbows.
Ford focused.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
