General Motors

Help Support CattleToday:

HerefordSire":1d5fo371 said:
Jogeephus":1d5fo371 said:
I hate to show my ignorance but I quit watching the news or listening to it. Just got tired of it. Was bringing me down.

Do you have any idea how much money will be able to be repaid? Say in Chrysler's case.

I just slapped some GM stats in a post but for Chrysler.....last I heard several years ago was that is was owned by a German hedge fund, so I always ignored the company in all areas. I did not like it when an American corp got bought out by a foreigner.


No hard numbers but look what happened to my buddy Lee....

Lee Iacocca, the car executive credited with saving Chrysler from bankruptcy in the 1980s, is to lose a big chunk of his pension and a guaranteed life-long company car due to the U.S. automaker's bankruptcy filing two decades later.

Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli told a U.S. bankruptcy court on Thursday that Iacocca's pension would be among the obligations Chrysler will no longer have to pay if it gets bankruptcy court approval to sell itself to a "New Chrysler" to be owned by its union, the U.S. and Canadian governments and Fiat SpA (FIA.MI).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090529/bs_ ... er_iacocca
 
Daimler-Benz couldn't save Chrysler. And Fiat can??? Better to let them go now, sad though it may be.
If you had $5 billion, (very theoretical question), would you bet it on Chrysler-Fiat. :lol: :lol: Chrysler makes whatever profit it makes on Dodge Ram trucks. The administration is clearly heck bent on an "expensive diesel fuel" policy. So, we're putting a knife in them on the one hand and giving them $5 billion on the other. I'm not ready for these times.
 
john250":2nvpk1oc said:
The headline in today's Indy Star is:
The new GM: leaner and government-owned

Isn't that a contradiction? Of course it is. Nothing government owned is ever "leaner". Government is synonymous with "pork", not "lean".
This is bad news for all of us.


This could be a way to think healthy about the whole thing. GM has a major presence in China. China has over a billion people trying to reach middle class status. They are converting from bicycles to cars. If China were to buy GM, for example, it would blister my bottom. Therefore, the entire government ownership deal, may be an issue of national security. After all, during WWII, did the car plants produce war machinery?
 
These "Heritage costs" and many other problems of General Motors and many other US Companies are the direct result of focus on SHORT TERM profits and stock price and resulting bonuses rather than thinking long term as some of the import companies, especially Japanese, have done.

If you look at the ratio of the top salary to the average factory worker in Europe or in Japan it is in the range of maybe 3, 4 or 5 to one. In an American company the ratio of the top guy to the average factory workers wage in their company may be 20, 30 or 100 to one...

The guy on top is looking out number one for himself, number two for the share holders and board of directors. He is only looking out for customers to the extent it helps the interests (= short term $$$) of the first two. This has been a good system for the guy that will only be in the job for a few years and then will pass the mess he leaves on to someone else.

The guy on top is not completely at fault in that Wall Street, shareholders and the board of directors all demand immediate results - and big ones.

How many times recently has a company announced a reasonable earnings increase only to have the stock just hammered because the increase "was less than analysts expected"???

Then the shareholders start calling the board members asking for his head on a platter....

It doesn't take too long for the guys on top to realize how this game is played and then just go with it...short term stock price is all that matters.....

Look at the CEO of AIG. Came in last Sept (08) and now says he's leaving..... How can you have a stable company when leaders change as soon as their pockets are full?

As far as union wages, I think it is a result also of this short term thinking. The guy on top would rather give in to the union demands rather than risk a strike or other unpleasantness which affects his short term bonus and the stock price. Rather than create an environment where the employees and management are in there together, the vast difference in compensation and short vs long term thinking and operation creates an us and them combative environment.

The key question is how do we break this cycle in large public companies caused by short term thinking and actions?

Maybe the markets have started the process already....

jmho. Jim
 
HerefordSire":2qnff1my said:
john250":2qnff1my said:
The headline in today's Indy Star is:
The new GM: leaner and government-owned

Isn't that a contradiction? Of course it is. Nothing government owned is ever "leaner". Government is synonymous with "pork", not "lean".
This is bad news for all of us.


This could be a way to think healthy about the whole thing. GM has a major presence in China. China has over a billion people trying to reach middle class status. They are converting from bicycles to cars. If China were to buy GM, for example, it would blister my bottom. Therefore, the entire government ownership deal, may be an issue of national security. After all, during WWII, did the car plants produce war machinery?

Too late HerefordSire. China owns so much of the US debt that they are virtually owners of the US and GM already.
 
SRBeef":3dd4zz3z said:
These "Heritage costs" and many other problems of General Motors and many other US Companies are the direct result of focus on SHORT TERM profits and stock price and resulting bonuses rather than thinking long term as some of the import companies, especially Japanese, have done.

If you look at the ratio of the top salary to the average factory worker in Europe or in Japan it is in the range of maybe 3, 4 or 5 to one. In an American company the ratio of the top guy to the average factory workers wage in their company may be 20, 30 or 100 to one...

The guy on top is looking out number one for himself, number two for the share holders and board of directors. He is only looking out for customers to the extent it helps the interests (= short term $$$) of the first two. This has been a good system for the guy that will only be in the job for a few years and then will pass the mess he leaves on to someone else.

The guy on top is not completely at fault in that Wall Street, shareholders and the board of directors all demand immediate results - and big ones.

How many times recently has a company announced a reasonable earnings increase only to have the stock just hammered because the increase "was less than analysts expected"???

Then the shareholders start calling the board members asking for his head on a platter....

It doesn't take too long for the guys on top to realize how this game is played and then just go with it...short term stock price is all that matters.....

Look at the CEO of AIG. Came in last Sept (08) and now says he's leaving..... How can you have a stable company when leaders change as soon as their pockets are full?

As far as union wages, I think it is a result also of this short term thinking. The guy on top would rather give in to the union demands rather than risk a strike or other unpleasantness which affects his short term bonus and the stock price. Rather than create an environment where the employees and management are in there together, the vast difference in compensation and short vs long term thinking and operation creates an us and them combative environment.

The key question is how do we break this cycle in large public companies caused by short term thinking and actions?

Maybe the markets have started the process already....

jmho. Jim

So many excellent points, however I think that the 2 most important ones are:

Short term thinking - immediate gratification. That's not good for a person or a company.

The board of directors - The CEO in a company is nothing but a figurehead. Sure, he can try to lead, but it's the board that makes the decisions. The CEO gets the bad publicity, gets hauled in before congress, and gets fired. The board keeps on doing the same thing.

Give me a board position over the CEO position anyday!
 
grannysoo":19q8u1rk said:
HerefordSire":19q8u1rk said:
john250":19q8u1rk said:
The headline in today's Indy Star is:
The new GM: leaner and government-owned

Isn't that a contradiction? Of course it is. Nothing government owned is ever "leaner". Government is synonymous with "pork", not "lean".
This is bad news for all of us.


This could be a way to think healthy about the whole thing. GM has a major presence in China. China has over a billion people trying to reach middle class status. They are converting from bicycles to cars. If China were to buy GM, for example, it would blister my bottom. Therefore, the entire government ownership deal, may be an issue of national security. After all, during WWII, did the car plants produce war machinery?

Too late HerefordSire. China owns so much of the US debt that they are virtually owners of the US and GM already.

What is happening is the opposite of what you are thinking. If you are a debt holder of securities like China is and we dilute all the dollars like we are doing now (monetizing debt), then what happens is we make the amount owed much smaller in today's (or tomorrow's) dollars. We could literally save trillions and trillions on the deal by paying off old debt with new dollars. But, there are two sides to every coin. The downside is, citizens having CDs (or those holding cash), for example, will lose. On the other hand, the citizen risk takers could be rewarded handsomely.


Edit....we are on the verge of shafting the Chinese people. This is not publisized, but if you listen to the Chinese leaders, they want to get weaned off the dollar because they know we will print the heck out of it. This could cause a war. Tim is over in China right now speaking of this exact subject. What I don't know is if GM has anything to do with the visit.
 
HerefordSire":12cl9h5k said:
What is happening is the opposite of what you are thinking. If you are a debt holder of securities like China is and we dilute all the dollars like we are doing now (monetizing debt), then what happens is we make the amount owed much smaller in today's (or tomorrow's) dollars. We could literally save trillions and trillions on the deal by paying off old debt with new dollars.

I understand your point, but at this point, my statement remains relatively true. It will not ring true much longer however.

Everyone is going to get screwed on the money printing deal. Interest rates are going to spike, hyper-inflation is coming, and that light that our government sees at the end of the tunnel is the train coming straight at us.

I do believe that we're on the same page. I even used italics to prove it! :mrgreen:

Is Obama's picture going to be on the Amero? :???:
 
grannysoo":3anxul5o said:
HerefordSire":3anxul5o said:
What is happening is the opposite of what you are thinking. If you are a debt holder of securities like China is and we dilute all the dollars like we are doing now (monetizing debt), then what happens is we make the amount owed much smaller in today's (or tomorrow's) dollars. We could literally save trillions and trillions on the deal by paying off old debt with new dollars.

I understand your point, but at this point, my statement remains relatively true. It will not ring true much longer however.

Everyone is going to get screwed on the money printing deal. Interest rates are going to spike, hyper-inflation is coming, and that light that our government sees at the end of the tunnel is the train coming straight at us.

I do believe that we're on the same page. I even used italics to prove it! :mrgreen:

Is Obama's picture going to be on the Amero? :???:


I agree with everything you are writing. Printing these fiat dollars (not backed by gold) are like a drug. Once you start it is very hard to stop. Generally, when prices begin to rise, owning a couple of hundred acres purchased today could be worth 10 fold soon. The trick is to cash out at the top like Mark Cuban did. However, anytime you stay in cash that is being diluted, during the interim, you are losing. It is like a hot potatoe. Let your cash sit idle and your buying power is reduced (or your hand is burnt).


Edit...so the problem becomes...to prevent sitting in cash, you have to risk losing it. Conundrum? The odds of picking a losing investment in diluted dollars is much greater than yesteryears' non-diluted dollars.
 
HerefordSire":bk81xyeq said:
Edit...so the problem becomes...to prevent sitting in cash, you have to risk losing it. Conundrum? The odds of picking a losing investment in diluted dollars is much greater than yesteryears' non-diluted dollars.

And the dilution is going to be HUGE...

The only thing that I see that is part of a way to maintain is to buy commodities. Actually purchase and take possession of them, not trading in funds.

I know you can't buy up bulk bread and milk, but you sure can buy flower, sugar, seeds, diesel fuel, smith & wesson, etc. The buying power that you have today is much greater than the buying power that we will be having in the next couple of years.

Buckle up! This is going to be some kind of ride. I'm not sure where the train is going to stop.
 
grannysoo":jnctd1bd said:
HerefordSire":jnctd1bd said:
Edit...so the problem becomes...to prevent sitting in cash, you have to risk losing it. Conundrum? The odds of picking a losing investment in diluted dollars is much greater than yesteryears' non-diluted dollars.

And the dilution is going to be HUGE...

The only thing that I see that is part of a way to maintain is to buy commodities. Actually purchase and take possession of them, not trading in funds.

I know you can't buy up bulk bread and milk, but you sure can buy flower, sugar, seeds, diesel fuel, smith & wesson, etc. The buying power that you have today is much greater than the buying power that we will be having in the next couple of years.

Buckle up! This is going to be some kind of ride. I'm not sure where the train is going to stop.

I agree 100%. I should add I think farmland that produces the commodity will increase in price more in percentage terms more than the commodity itself. The cheapest agriculture land with the best soil and growing environment in the entire world with the best military could be the best investment.
 
HerefordSire":dvrzswv9 said:
grannysoo":dvrzswv9 said:
And the dilution is going to be HUGE...

The only thing that I see that is part of a way to maintain is to buy commodities. Actually purchase and take possession of them, not trading in funds.

I know you can't buy up bulk bread and milk, but you sure can buy flower, sugar, seeds, diesel fuel, smith & wesson, etc. The buying power that you have today is much greater than the buying power that we will be having in the next couple of years.

Buckle up! This is going to be some kind of ride. I'm not sure where the train is going to stop.

I agree 100%. I should add I think farmland that produces the commodity will increase in price more in percentage terms more than the commodity itself. The cheapest agriculture land with the best soil and growing environment in the entire world with the best military could be the best investment.

Been thinking on this thread and have a question. Assuming it all plays out like this and I have no doubt it will, wouldn't this also be the perfect time for we in agriculture to direct market our products in a more serious manner if we aren't already doing it? I see a lot of cash left on the table and it just seems that maybe we need to go to a more decentralized marketing system similar to what was used during the depression era. Any thoughts on this?
 
I assume you are talking about direct from farm to consumer. Yes. I think consumers will become a lot more interested in order to save money or even be able to get it.

For a long time it keeps coming into my mind that our transportation system is vulnerable. Should transportation shut down...?
 
Jogeephus":1xxxvn3d said:
Been thinking on this thread and have a question. Assuming it all plays out like this and I have no doubt it will, wouldn't this also be the perfect time for we in agriculture to direct market our products in a more serious manner if we aren't already doing it? I see a lot of cash left on the table and it just seems that maybe we need to go to a more decentralized marketing system similar to what was used during the depression era. Any thoughts on this?

Numerous problems-------Just to name a few
FDA
USDA
EPA
But the lawyers and congress will cause the biggest problem.

Remember how our government ripped a little boy out the arms of family for Castro?

Heard they are going to ask you how may toilets you have on the next census. They will also want to know if they flush? :roll:

Wonder if we can get by answering "I don't own any, my famliy owns them"?
 
Yeah, the fear of them is what's been holding me up so far. I just don't know if the reward will be worth the headache or the risk. HS had me all pumped up. I have a pretty good business plan, even support from my banker, money is not a real obstacle, would create jobs, I really want to do it, but .... as you say in your reality check ... :cry2: Hence my thoughts on cashing in my chips and sailing south. Maybe I do need a change. A change of latitude.
 
Jogeephus":1q3aovvm said:
Been thinking on this thread and have a question. Assuming it all plays out like this and I have no doubt it will, wouldn't this also be the perfect time for we in agriculture to direct market our products in a more serious manner if we aren't already doing it? I see a lot of cash left on the table and it just seems that maybe we need to go to a more decentralized marketing system similar to what was used during the depression era. Any thoughts on this?

Direct marketing takes out the middleman. There is a larger spread available. The distribution pipeline depends on several important things such as marketing, volume, etc. If you have high volume, for example, it is possible you could make more money by having a middlemen with less spread. If we fall into a depression, landowners should protect their paid off land by figuring out how to pay property taxes in addition to eating. Depression land owners owing money on their land are likely to lose their land.
 
1982vett":15frtqko said:
Numerous problems-------Just to name a few
FDA
USDA
EPA
But the lawyers and congress will cause the biggest problem.

Remember how our government ripped a little boy out the arms of family for Castro?

Heard they are going to ask you how may toilets you have on the next census. They will also want to know if they flush? :roll:

Wonder if we can get by answering "I don't own any, my famliy owns them"?

Not only do they want to know if you have a toilet that flushes, but also what time you go to work...to the minute. I am afraid it will only get worse. A guest on Fox investment shows this morning advocated lying on the questions so big brother doesn't know the truth. Should be DNA testing before long. Before that happens, expect a tax on sugar products.
 
Jogeephus":36seahcj said:
Yeah, the fear of them is what's been holding me up so far. I just don't know if the reward will be worth the headache or the risk. HS had me all pumped up. I have a pretty good business plan, even support from my banker, money is not a real obstacle, would create jobs, I really want to do it, but .... as you say in your reality check ... :cry2: Hence my thoughts on cashing in my chips and sailing south. Maybe I do need a change. A change of latitude.

Area co-ops would be a possible way to go. But being small it would be hard to compete with the big boys. Folks are still going to pitch a fit if they have to pay for food like they do their other precious status symbol junk. They already think they shouldn't have to provide their own medical care.
 
HerefordSire":befh5ssr said:
1982vett":befh5ssr said:
Numerous problems-------Just to name a few
FDA
USDA
EPA
But the lawyers and congress will cause the biggest problem.

Remember how our government ripped a little boy out the arms of family for Castro?

Heard they are going to ask you how may toilets you have on the next census. They will also want to know if they flush? :roll:

Wonder if we can get by answering "I don't own any, my famliy owns them"?

Not only do they want to know if you have a toilet that flushes, but also what time you go to work...to the minute. I am afraid it will only get worse. A guest on Fox investment shows this morning advocated lying on the questions so big brother doesn't know the truth. Should be DNA testing before long. Before that happens, expect a tax on sugar products.

Yeah, I heard that too. Advocated? He did say it, but I think more in jest, cause if I'm not mistaken, you attest under penalty, that the information submitted is factual. Lying would put you at risk.
 

Latest posts

Top