Sick of GM threads and GM

[Bullett]

Re-read Bullett's post. He said - "...unless the company is above board and upfront about the risk to investors, and the general public, inherent in their activity." Big difference.

 

I'm sorry, Ken and Sharon, I'm not buying that as a difference at all.

 

Are you saying that you want a company, a car company in this instance, say that "By buying our stock, you may lose your investment if we make bad decisions, don't sell a lot of cars, hire our brothers in law for outrageous amounts of money, or because we simply feel like mailing it in for a few years till we go away altogether....." or some other such type of statement?

 

Come on, that's wholly unrealistic.

 

The risk in the investing is to the investor. The only person who makes money in both good and bad markets is the stock broker. If you don't accept that your investment is at risk, then, you should leave your money in a savings account or buy savings bonds....

 

Every prospectus says that there is risk inherent in the investment.

 

However, your 1040 doesn't say "Dear Taxpayer: Your hard earned tax dollars may go to bail out some dumb ass who couldn't make a decent business decision if it bit him on the ass."

 

 

[Lets_Play_Two]

"However, your 1040 doesn't say "Dear Taxpayer: Your hard earned tax dollars may go to bail out some dumb ass who couldn't make a decent business decision if it bit him on the ass."

 

Correct, as with all expenditures it is your elected representative that makes that decision for you.

[Matts_12GS]

Every prospectus says that there is risk inherent in the investment.

 

However, your 1040 doesn't say "Dear Taxpayer: Your hard earned tax dollars may go to bail out some dumb ass who couldn't make a decent business decision if it bit him on the ass."

 

My 1040 also doesn't say that it's going to fund welfare for lazy SOBs who won't work, etc... It's no fun is it? I guess that's what happens when you allow others to make those decisions for you...

 

While we cannot get them to make every decision we want, the power to influence them is in our hands, just so long as the politicians begin to realize that 90% of them won't get reelected.

[ltljohn]

Another question

 

Time to ask a question. Last year GM and Toyota sold almost the same amount of cars, About 1.9 million. Toyota made a profit in the billions and GM had a loss in the billions. CEO salaries and union wages are but a drop in the bucket for these numbers. Where did GM's money go???

This article helps to explain that a little bit...

 

The linked article tells me that they are essentially too big for their britches and that their cost per unit in too high to be profitable. What makes the cost per unit so much different between GM and Toyota.

[Whip]

Another question

 

Time to ask a question. Last year GM and Toyota sold almost the same amount of cars, About 1.9 million. Toyota made a profit in the billions and GM had a loss in the billions. CEO salaries and union wages are but a drop in the bucket for these numbers. Where did GM's money go???

This article helps to explain that a little bit...

 

The linked article tells me that they are essentially too big for their britches and that their cost per unit in too high to be profitable. What makes the cost per unit so much different between GM and Toyota.

 

 

Legacy costs....

[ltljohn]

Another question

 

Time to ask a question. Last year GM and Toyota sold almost the same amount of cars, About 1.9 million. Toyota made a profit in the billions and GM had a loss in the billions. CEO salaries and union wages are but a drop in the bucket for these numbers. Where did GM's money go???

This article helps to explain that a little bit...

 

The linked article tells me that they are essentially too big for their britches and that their cost per unit in too high to be profitable. What makes the cost per unit so much different between GM and Toyota.

 

 

Legacy costs....

 

 

So this means that bailing them out will just delay the inevetable. The only way for GM to be profitable is for them to shed the legacy costs?

 

The only way to shed the legacy costs is to file for bankrupcy and shift this cost to the Pension Guarantee Corp(the taxpayer). Maybe I am over simplifying this but no matter what happens our taxes will bail them out. Which method will cost us the taxpayer less and make them a healthy company for ther long run?

[Twisties]

Mike, seriously, you have to stop this "greed" bullshit. Free and fair markets will deal with greed automatically.

 

Join the real world Steve and open your eyes. That view has been discredited for 130 years now, since they found the meat packers grinding rats into rotted meat and selling it as hamburger in Chicago. The lesson is repeated every few years or so.

 

We depend upon regulation to temper greed in a capitalistic system. The trick is to balance it and make it effective.

 

Now I'm with you in that I wish it were unnecessary, but that is simply not a realistic view at all.

[Whip]

Mike, seriously, you have to stop this "greed" bullshit. Free and fair markets will deal with greed automatically.

 

Join the real world Steve and open your eyes. That view has been discredited for 130 years now, since they found the meat packers grinding rats into rotted meat and selling it as hamburger in Chicago. The lesson is repeated every few years or so.

 

We depend upon regulation to temper greed in a capitalistic system. The trick is to balance it and make it effective.

 

Now I'm with you in that I wish it were unnecessary, but that is simply not a realistic view at all.

 

So long as were straight........you're talking about illegal greed.

 

Where people go to jail when caught??????

 

 

So all legal means are okay with ya........

 

 

No punishment for legal greed right???????????????????????

 

 

You don't think there is anything wrong with dude makein a bazillion dollars in the meat packing bidness as long as he's not doin anything illegal?????????????????????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twisties]

Whip,

 

I'm just saying there is a level of regulation that is needed. That implies that there must be laws regulating business, and those laws will be beneficial if properly crafted.

 

The danger of no regulation or under regulation is clear. The danger of excess regulation or inappropriate regulation is also clear, though generally much less severe.

 

I don't have a problem with competition within the rules. Enron, though complex and I don't really understand it, seems to have gone beyond the rules. Whatever is going on with our financial industry right now either went beyond the rules, or shows that the rules need to be changed.

 

I thought Steve's point, to which I responded is that rules are unnecessary and damaging, markets will sort everything out. This may be the case in principle, but in practice how do you know if your candy bar has melamine from Chinese adulterated milk, and who's to say that's wrong if not the government?

 

I can envision a society in which the rich might support testing services and seals of approval on products, and then choose to buy only those products. But really then, are we to leave the poor to die from poisoned products? Who is going control pollution if not the government? Steve's position just struck me as utterly unrealistic.

[Twisties]

I place much of the blame at the foot of political correctness. In large part because the pussyfooting that required made honest conversation both difficult AND dangerous. That there is now great risk in honest discourse has made handling problems as they occur not worthy of the effort until the defecant hits the rotary oscillator.

 

What are you talking about? Discourse has never been more alive than since the internet and talk radio. Anything and everything are discussed. Really, I'm at a total loss to understand your point.

[Twisties]

To answer you a little more specifically Whip, no, "all legal means" will lead to a spiral of ever increasing regulation, and is seldom in a business' long term interests.

 

In my personal business experience I have found that crafting deals that seem likely to result in win/win situations, with all risk as and rewards clearly understood by all parties usually results in the best outcome for my long term interests.

 

In meat packer terminology, they knew what they were doing was wrong, but the legal frame work was not there to stop them. By taking advantage of this they in fact created the FDA, or at least the need for something like the FDA. Was mislabeling products and including unhealthy (rats and insects) ingredients worth it to the industry in the long run?

[Matts_12GS]

What are you talking about? Discourse has never been more alive than since the internet and talk radio. Anything and everything are discussed. Really, I'm at a total loss to understand your point.

 

My point was made that there is a tremendous lack of leadership, and that because of this shortage, people are reticent to actually state what problems are until they unavoidable.

 

In short, I believe that people have become so worried about the feelings/interpretations of others they refuse to solve the very real issues they face.

 

What you refer to as discourse amounts to little more than demagoguery on both sides of an issue, any issue. There's a lot of chatter and background noise, but precious little substance. Out there, it's about ratings and revenue. In congress it's about re-election and powerbases. There's little need for actually solving problems once you have identified someone you can blame.

[John Ranalletta]

We depend upon regulation to temper greed in a capitalistic system. The trick is to balance it and make it effective.

No, we depend upon regulation to deter and punish criminal acts and proscribed civil acts.

 

Greed is only bridled by one's values, not laws. Regulation kicks in when one's greed leads to illegal behaviors.

[ghaverkamp]

The only way to shed the legacy costs is to file for bankrupcy and shift this cost to the Pension Guarantee Corp(the taxpayer). Maybe I am over simplifying this but no matter what happens our taxes will bail them out. Which method will cost us the taxpayer less and make them a healthy company for ther long run?

 

I've read this several times on the board, and it's not true. The PBGC, like the FDIC, is funded by premiums paid by pension plans, not by the taxpayer.

[Twisties]

We depend upon regulation to temper greed in a capitalistic system. The trick is to balance it and make it effective.

No, we depend upon regulation to deter and punish criminal acts and proscribed civil acts.

 

Greed is only bridled by one's values, not laws. Regulation kicks in when one's greed leads to illegal behaviors.

 

Until one makes the decision to regulate there will be no relevant laws or criminal acts. Once you have determined that there is an issue which requires regulation, you can then set about making the laws, rules, and agencies to effect that.

 

I think our difference here is semantic. I mean regulate in the broad sense, not in terms of the specific rules that are promulgated.

[ltljohn]

The only way to shed the legacy costs is to file for bankrupcy and shift this cost to the Pension Guarantee Corp(the taxpayer). Maybe I am over simplifying this but no matter what happens our taxes will bail them out. Which method will cost us the taxpayer less and make them a healthy company for ther long run?

 

I've read this several times on the board, and it's not true. The PBGC, like the FDIC, is funded by premiums paid by pension plans, not by the taxpayer.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

[John Ranalletta]

The only way to shed the legacy costs is to file for bankrupcy and shift this cost to the Pension Guarantee Corp(the taxpayer). Maybe I am over simplifying this but no matter what happens our taxes will bail them out. Which method will cost us the taxpayer less and make them a healthy company for ther long run?

 

I've read this several times on the board, and it's not true. The PBGC, like the FDIC, is funded by premiums paid by pension plans, not by the taxpayer.

Oh? From CFO.com

The debt-laden agency, whose shaky finances had raised fears of a future taxpayer bailout, saw its deficit reduced to $13.1 billion from $18.1 billion the year before. The improvement was spurred by healthy economic growth, strong investment returns and higher "valuation interest factors," according to Charles Millard, the PBGC's interim director. (PBGC’s valuation interest factors, used in conjunction with a specified mortality table, are intended to "match" the resulting present value of future benefits from the plans it has trusteed.)

Isn't your statement like saying there's no problem with SS because it "...is funded by premiums..." Just like SS is a personal welfare program because its benefits exceed premiums, the PGBC is corporate welfare because the premiums it charges don't cover its liabilities.

[BeniciaRT_GT]

I've read this several times on the board, and it's not true. The PBGC, like the FDIC, is funded by premiums paid by pension plans, not by the taxpayer.

 

 

Okay, I have stayed out of these threads for years, mainly because I just don't see having the time to debate people which can result in hours of typing with really no change in entrenched opinions and theories sprinkled with ignorance. (This would include mine almost all the time by the way!)

 

In fact I've found that over the last few years, my opinion on several people has changed dramatically simply because of threads like this, and I find that very sad since we're all pretty much here for the same exact thing: Riding and Wrenching.

 

First off, if you get all your info from mainstream media, just stop reading, go grab some more kool aid, and ignore my rants. If you talk to people that live and breathe it, on both sides, then now you are getting somewhere. (Especially if you look to the media for what a worker makes at "the plant.")

 

I'm not going to get into this very deeply, since I don't want to spend the time typing away. (See above) I will apologize right now if some of my explanations don't make sense to some folks, but like I said, I just don't want to get sucked in any further!

 

However, since I sort of have a dog in this fight (I"m now the proud owner of a fine, very reduced, retirement plan to be handed out by the PBGC) and was on the pointy end of a fight involving the PBGC, Federal Bankruptcy Court, some of those greedy union workers and wonderful free market folks in charge.

 

First some facts on the PBGC:

 

Some of my folks lost as much as 60% of their retirement when the PBGC took over United's ground worker's pension plan. There are multiple restrictions to cause this, but I'm really not inclined to debate all the conditions as to why. However, the cap on payments had nothing to do with why these folks lost so much retirement.

 

There is a 5 year "look back" on benefits. This was put in place when a steel industry gave huge benefits a few days before defaulting on the pensions and turning them over to the PBGC. Now here is a regulation that had to be put in place because it wasn't illegal, so now with the restriction, other industries' workers will get screwed. If you go for 12 years with the same retirement multiplier, and then get a new higher one to at least help the people about to retire, it is reduced 20% per year since the old number, if it was changed less than 5 years earlier.

 

 

Next is age. In an industry where people only tend to live only a few years (under 8) after retiring, over the years one benefit was being able to retire at less than 65, in some cases even 55 at a reduced payment. Now the PBGC doesn't care about any contract or any other circumstances, so if you are under 65 and start to receive benefits you take penalties per year under that. If you've retired already, you don't get to go back to work there until you are 65.

 

 

The PBGC also gets its money from those corporations who have defined benefit plans, however, if they cannot meet their obligations, which will happen very soon, the Fed will back them up.

 

 

As to legacy costs, part of this is that spin we always see on both sides. Companies keep wages down by also promising other benefits. One of them is not supposed to be deferred spending for retirement, but as the whole per hour costs at the time the employee is working. In other words, if Company A tells me I'm only making $5/hour because I'll get a good retirement (defined benefit, forget defined contribution plans) then they are putting away money while I'm there. Here is where it went from bad to worse. They used the old pyramid scheme to fund current retirees with current employees. Here is one of the loudest drums: the company cannot sustain paying for people who don't work there anymore. The reality is that was to be taken care of while the retiree was still employed, but no one seems to get that.

 

And again a regulation to keep corporations from hiding money in other places pops up, so there are actually restrictions/penalties if they put in to much money too. However, they underfunded them as a general rule by not contributing when the markets were propping up the numbers at an obviously unsustainable pace. They felt the need to spend incredible amounts of money on risky things to say the least.

 

Another part of "legacy" cost is actually overhead. It's in there, and its BS. What a car costs per hour minus payroll for only those who "touch" a product would be an interesting number...

 

It is apparently a lot of fun and easy to risk someone else's money when you are guaranteed your millions regardless of performance, simply because all your friends are on the compensation board, as you are on ones at the companies where they are in charge.

 

Most of the folks in this debate have my phone # so if you really want to debate it further, feel free to call, but like I've stated above, I'm not inclined to spend my days off typing.

 

Now I got a bead to try to seat on my freshly mounted tire off the GT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BeniciaRT_GT]

Oh, and I forgot the main thing I posted to this thread:

 

Please understand my prediction: (mark my words, read my lips, or any other saying you can think of that makes it clear I am incredibly smug and passionately believe in this statement)

 

There will be NO bailout until they can crush the workers benefits and wages.

 

If you don't believe that, I got a lot of land and bridges to sell you...

 

Unless that is part of the deal, the industry will be allowed to die.

 

 

[Whip]

Your phone is ringin....

 

[chrisolson]

Mike, seriously, you have to stop this "greed" bullshit. Free and fair markets will deal with greed automatically.

 

Join the real world Steve and open your eyes. That view has been discredited for 130 years now, since they found the meat packers grinding rats into rotted meat and selling it as hamburger in Chicago. The lesson is repeated every few years or so.

 

We depend upon regulation to temper greed in a capitalistic system. The trick is to balance it and make it effective.

 

Now I'm with you in that I wish it were unnecessary, but that is simply not a realistic view at all.

 

So long as were straight........you're talking about illegal greed.

 

Where people go to jail when caught??????

 

 

So all legal means are okay with ya........

 

 

No punishment for legal greed right???????????????????????

 

 

You don't think there is anything wrong with dude makein a bazillion dollars in the meat packing bidness as long as he's not doin anything illegal?????????????????????

 

How do you deal with activities which are legal, but then become illegal via regulation such as the fast and loose playing in the CDS market by Bear Sterns, AIG and others? Regulations are now being formulated to put some restraints on these financial instruments mostly, as I see it, due to the lack of responsibility (eithical or otherwise) in how these transactions were leveraged and traded without any apparent concern for the ability to back them up. Those involved made millions and millions and left others holding the bag.

 

Maybe that's not greed, but pretty darn close. I guess I have a hard time figuring out if that meets the criteria for a "free and fair" market? What does the word fair in that context mean? Does it only mean "legal" or is there some ethical or moral component?

[John Ranalletta]

There is a 5 year "look back" on benefits.

I heard that if the GM pension liabilities are absorbed by the PBGC, workers who took early retirement buyouts will be made to disgorge some if not all, but I am not certain of the facts.

[Twisties]

Mike, seriously, you have to stop this "greed" bullshit. Free and fair markets will deal with greed automatically.

 

Join the real world Steve and open your eyes. That view has been discredited for 130 years now, since they found the meat packers grinding rats into rotted meat and selling it as hamburger in Chicago. The lesson is repeated every few years or so.

 

We depend upon regulation to temper greed in a capitalistic system. The trick is to balance it and make it effective.

 

Now I'm with you in that I wish it were unnecessary, but that is simply not a realistic view at all.

 

So long as were straight........you're talking about illegal greed.

 

Where people go to jail when caught??????

 

 

So all legal means are okay with ya........

 

 

No punishment for legal greed right???????????????????????

 

 

You don't think there is anything wrong with dude makein a bazillion dollars in the meat packing bidness as long as he's not doin anything illegal?????????????????????

 

How do you deal with activities which are legal, but then become illegal via regulation such as the fast and loose playing in the CDS market by Bear Sterns, AIG and others? Regulations are now being formulated to put some restraints on these financial instruments mostly, as I see it, due to the lack of responsibility (eithical or otherwise) in how these transactions were leveraged and traded without any apparent concern for the ability to back them up. Those involved made millions and millions and left others holding the bag.

 

Maybe that's not greed, but pretty darn close. I guess I have a hard time figuring out if that meets the criteria for a "free and fair" market? What does the word fair in that context mean? Does it only mean "legal" or is there some ethical or moral component?

 

+1 No way to say it better.

[Whip]

Mike, seriously, you have to stop this "greed" bullshit. Free and fair markets will deal with greed automatically.

 

Join the real world Steve and open your eyes. That view has been discredited for 130 years now, since they found the meat packers grinding rats into rotted meat and selling it as hamburger in Chicago. The lesson is repeated every few years or so.

 

We depend upon regulation to temper greed in a capitalistic system. The trick is to balance it and make it effective.

 

Now I'm with you in that I wish it were unnecessary, but that is simply not a realistic view at all.

 

So long as were straight........you're talking about illegal greed.

 

Where people go to jail when caught??????

 

 

So all legal means are okay with ya........

 

 

No punishment for legal greed right???????????????????????

 

 

You don't think there is anything wrong with dude makein a bazillion dollars in the meat packing bidness as long as he's not doin anything illegal?????????????????????

 

How do you deal with activities which are legal, but then become illegal via regulation such as the fast and loose playing in the CDS market by Bear Sterns, AIG and others? Regulations are now being formulated to put some restraints on these financial instruments mostly, as I see it, due to the lack of responsibility (eithical or otherwise) in how these transactions were leveraged and traded without any apparent concern for the ability to back them up. Those involved made millions and millions and left others holding the bag.

 

Maybe that's not greed, but pretty darn close. I guess I have a hard time figuring out if that meets the criteria for a "free and fair" market? What does the word fair in that context mean? Does it only mean "legal" or is there some ethical or moral component?

 

+1 No way to say it better.

 

___________________________________________________________

 

 

You mean just like when you buy a stock for a dollar. Sell it for $100. It goes down to zero soon after.

 

Should ya give some of that money back.........or go to jail.

 

You greedy Bastage.

 

__________________________________________________________

 

You start a bidness, make it profitable. Sell it. The dude you sold it to loses his a#$ for whatever reason.

 

Should ya give some money back to the dude?????????

 

 

Greedy....if ya don't????????????????????

_________________________________________________________

 

I have no idea about the details of the the Bear Stern and AIG deal........and I bet you guys don't either. I bet there is a whole other side to that deal. So help me learn about greed with some small scale examples.

 

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chrisolson]

No, I don't know all the details, but there's plenty of examples of Credit Default Swaps and how they work(ed) and how much Bear and AIG were involved ... Google is your firend :smile: Heck, even Warren thought they were toxic!

 

No, its not like buy a stock for $1 and sell it for $100 ... its more like Jack says to Jill ... "Jill, I'll insure your $1 million risk for $100/month" and when the risk comes due Jack says "Sorry Jill, I don't have the money to pay you because I wasn't required to have any reserves and, oh yeah, I never thought the debt would go bad (hmmmmmm, right) so I never put aside the money to pay you even though I collected all your premiums and even sold your obligation to another party for a hefty profit ... and no, I ain't givin' you back your premiums or my sales profit either ... I'll just go out of business and take my millions with me."

[ghaverkamp]

Isn't your statement like saying there's no problem with SS because it "...is funded by premiums..." Just like SS is a personal welfare program because its benefits exceed premiums, the PGBC is corporate welfare because the premiums it charges don't cover its liabilities.

 

As Richard notes, there's no mechanism to trigger public funding of the PBGC. It can simply reduce benefits in order to alleviate its deficit. Should things come to that, it will be up to Congress to determine whether the taxpayer will bear the burden.

[Whip]

No, I don't know all the details, but there's plenty of examples of Credit Default Swaps and how they work(ed) and how much Bear and AIG were involved ... Google is your firend :smile: Heck, even Warren thought they were toxic!

 

No, its not like buy a stock for $1 and sell it for $100 ... its more like Jack says to Jill ... "Jill, I'll insure your $1 million risk for $100/month" and when the risk comes due Jack says "Sorry Jill, I don't have the money to pay you because I wasn't required to have any reserves and, oh yeah, I never thought the debt would go bad (hmmmmmm, right) so I never put aside the money to pay you even though I collected all your premiums and even sold your obligation to another party for a hefty profit ... and no, I ain't givin' you back your premiums or my sales profit either ... I'll just go out of business and take my millions with me."

 

 

So what your sayin is if you insure somethin, then a claim is made and you can't pay up. Your greedy......cause you then went bankrupt.???????????????????????

 

Hurricanes have broke insurance companies before...........

 

 

I think your lookin for a boogy man, mixed with a lot of financial and class envy.

 

I still want a definition of greed????????

 

That wasn't it.

 

 

 

 

[chrisolson]

... I think your lookin for a boogy man, mixed with a lot of financial and class envy.

Not even close my friend, and I'm dissapointed that you'd think that. I agree with you that if there's a legal door open and you walk through, so much the better and shame on those that should have locked the door through regulation.

 

However, to the previous example, no, not because they went bankrupt. If you insure something knowing in advace that you have no ability of being able to pay it off if called, is that OK with you? Its OK because its legal?

 

[Whip]

... I think your lookin for a boogy man, mixed with a lot of financial and class envy.

Not even close my friend, and I'm dissapointed that you'd think that. I agree with you that if there's a legal door open and you walk through, so much the better and shame on those that should have locked the door through regulation.

 

However, to the previous example, no, not because they went bankrupt. If you insure something knowing in advace that you have no ability of being able to pay it off if called, is that OK with you? Its OK because its legal?

 

 

I say again hurricanes have sent insurance companies into bankruptcy.......

 

There is no way anyone could have covered the losses that have incurred on paper in the last few months.

 

You are talking about......."stopping greed".

 

 

Greed is what makes the world go around.......without it we would still be in the stone age.

 

Everything you have and see around you is the result of greed.

 

I don't want to rub sticks together and chase deer through the woods with rocks.

 

Greed is the key to life.

 

Steve is Right

 

Stop with the Bullsh$t.

 

_________________________________________________

 

That was fun....I feel a lot better now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chrisolson]

Geeze, I hate deer, rocks and running through the woods too!! Not sure what that has to do with anything I've said ... ya sure you haven't confused me with someone else ... I mean, yeah, I have been known to listen to NPR but that's no reason to insult me ....

 

Greed is good, greed is good, greed is good .... until regulated to a bearable level.

 

OK, I feel better now too !!! :smile:

 

 

[Whip]

Geeze, I hate deer, rocks and running through the woods too!! Not sure what that has to do with anything I've said ... ya sure you haven't confused me with someone else ... I mean, yeah, I have been known to listen to NPR but that's no reason to insult me ....

 

Greed is good, greed is good, greed is good .... until regulated to a bearable level.

 

OK, I feel better now too !!! :smile:

 

 

Now that we both feel better......

 

Happy New Years????????????????????

 

From one greedy Bastage to an NPR listener.

 

 

 

[steve.foote]

Jan, my comments about greed are not a knock at regulation, but rather pointing out the overly simplistic attempt to blame these problems on a human characteristic which is as impossible to eradicate as love.

 

Greed is a natural human condition. It is what drives us to achieve. Capitalism understands the role of greed in promoting a society, and embraces the good which it does, while tempering the potential harm it can cause.

 

My problem with Mike's comment is that it is overly simplistic to expect that the cessasion of something as fundemental as greed can somehow magically solve our problems. This is akin to trying to wipe out airborne diseases by getting people to stop breathing. While it may sound good at first blush, it really isn't a useful solution.

[chrisolson]

Geeze, I hate deer, rocks and running through the woods too!! Not sure what that has to do with anything I've said ... ya sure you haven't confused me with someone else ... I mean, yeah, I have been known to listen to NPR but that's no reason to insult me ....

 

Greed is good, greed is good, greed is good .... until regulated to a bearable level.

 

OK, I feel better now too !!! :smile:

 

 

Now that we both feel better......

 

Happy New Years????????????????????

 

From one greedy Bastage to an NPR listener.

 

 

Trouble is, you ain't greedy no matter how much you protest ... but I still have been known to listen to NPR.

 

Happy New Year! Wish I could be there!

[Whip]

Jan, my comments about greed are not a knock at regulation, but rather pointing out the overly simplistic attempt to blame these problems on a human characteristic which is as impossible to eradicate as love.

 

Greed is a natural human condition. It is what drives us to achieve. Capitalism understands the role of greed in promoting a society, and embraces the good which it does, while tempering the potential harm it can cause.

 

My problem with Mike's comment is that it is overly simplistic to expect that the cessasion of something as fundemental as greed can somehow magically solve our problems. This is akin to trying to wipe out airborne diseases by getting people to stop breathing. While it may sound good at first blush, it really isn't a useful solution.

 

Isn't that what I said??????????????????

 

 

....must be an echo in here.

 

 

 

 

[steve.foote]

No, I don't know all the details, but there's plenty of examples of Credit Default Swaps and how they work(ed) and how much Bear and AIG were involved ... Google is your firend :smile: Heck, even Warren thought they were toxic!

 

No, its not like buy a stock for $1 and sell it for $100 ... its more like Jack says to Jill ... "Jill, I'll insure your $1 million risk for $100/month" and when the risk comes due Jack says "Sorry Jill, I don't have the money to pay you because I wasn't required to have any reserves and, oh yeah, I never thought the debt would go bad (hmmmmmm, right) so I never put aside the money to pay you even though I collected all your premiums and even sold your obligation to another party for a hefty profit ... and no, I ain't givin' you back your premiums or my sales profit either ... I'll just go out of business and take my millions with me."

 

So, does Jill ever get slapped for being a sucker? Maybe if Jill put a little more thought into her transactions, she would just have been another angry person being made responsible to right the irresponsible deeds of dolts.

[Twisties]

Jan, my comments about greed are not a knock at regulation, but rather pointing out the overly simplistic attempt to blame these problems on a human characteristic which is as impossible to eradicate as love.

 

Greed is a natural human condition. It is what drives us to achieve. Capitalism understands the role of greed in promoting a society, and embraces the good which it does, while tempering the potential harm it can cause.

 

My problem with Mike's comment is that it is overly simplistic to expect that the cessasion of something as fundemental as greed can somehow magically solve our problems. This is akin to trying to wipe out airborne diseases by getting people to stop breathing. While it may sound good at first blush, it really isn't a useful solution.

 

+1

[steve.foote]

Isn't that what I said??????????????????

 

 

....must be an echo in here.

 

I'm sure you did, Whip, we're often on the same page. I've been speed reading my way through this thread and must have just missed it.

[Ken H.]

I still want a definition of greed????????

The accumulation of wealth for no useful purpose other than for personal satisfaction.

 

When - What I have, becomes my life driving force, not - What I do.

[Whip]

I still want a definition of greed????????

The accumulation of wealth for no useful purpose other than for personal satisfaction.

 

When - What I have, becomes my life driving force, not - What I do.

 

Then everyone that works harder to get a raise so they can get a new bike or a better house is Greedy!!!!!!!

 

I think your taking that stuff a little too far.

 

 

[Ken H.]

Greed is a natural human condition. It is what drives us to achieve.

I fundamentally disagree with that. (Big surprise right?) At least as a generalization statement. Sure unabashed greed drive some, but there are many, many other things that drive people too: The honest desire to help others; a love of and desire for accomplishments in the arts or a sport; the personal quest for fulfillment on a spiritual level or attainment of inner peace; the quest to lead a life that will result in life after death in some belief systems; the quest for advancement of human understanding in research, medical, scientific; and many more examples of what motivates people to do what they do.

 

Many, many activities, careers, and life paths some people choose to pursue actually result in them being disadvantaged from a capitalistic economic standpoint. But yet they pursue/follow them for other just as valid of reasons.

 

To say that greed "is what drives us to achieve” is grossly over-simplistic and frankly borderline insulting to the legions of people who have chosen a different path.

 

They don’t suffer from “wealth/class envy,” they aren’t suffering at all. They feel their life paths are important and of value to the human condition.

 

[Tony_K]

Back to being sick of GM threads how about this.

 

There's really no problems with GM... they're doing GREAT IN CHINA !!! Click on the red for fun!

[Francois_Dumas]

That's it, I'm off to China.

 

Bye.

[RichEdwards]

Seems that there are two sets of rules for GREED here. The greed that drives workers to organize in a union and make $71 an hour is evil. The greed that drives a CEO to make 22 million a year is good. Seems that both of those guys help drive up the price of a Ford F-150. It's time that the rules are the same for both labor and management.

[Quinn]

Seems that there are two sets of rules for GREED here. The greed that drives workers to organize in a union and make $71 an hour is evil. The greed that drives a CEO to make 22 million a year is good. Seems that both of those guys help drive up the price of a Ford F-150. It's time that the rules are the same for both labor and management.

 

So what do you call the drive to own a Ford F-150 when what you need is a Prius for 362 days a year?

 

 

[chrisolson]

...Greed is a natural human condition. It is what drives us to achieve. Capitalism understands the role of greed in promoting a society, and embraces the good which it does, while tempering the potential harm it can cause.

Absolutely ... greed can not / should not be eliminated. What I've tried to discuss is are there limits - ethical, moral, societal or other - to greed within the construct of our version of capitalism ... i.e. what is the "fair" component of the free and fair market?

 

Whip seems to posit that if bad greed exists it is tied to engaging in an illegal activity and then isn't really greed anymore, its an illegal activity but your above statement seems to indicate that a potential difference exists outside of that context, yes?

 

What is your vision of tempering ... what is an example of captialism tempering "potentially harmful" greed? I understand and agree with the "embracing the good" part

 

edit: I mistakenly responded to Twisties post, but actually this is for RightSpin

 

 

[tallman]

Whip,

Greed is a form of motivation.

Motivation doesn't always come from greed.

Is your motivation intrinsic or extrinsic?

Is your motive based on what you can get, or what you can get at the expense (cost to)of another?

On a personal level, greed is taking, using, more than you need.

Although not necessarily illegal, immoral, or unethical, it has a negative connotation, and for some that makes it bad.

For others, that would not matter.

Good/bad is a personal issue with specific ideology/theology and experience coloring our perception.

Some people don't want to be perceived of as bad, some don't care.

And, just refraining from being bad doesn't make you good.

 

On a corporate level, greed is defined by someone outside the corporation who sees what those inside do not, or will not see.

That the actions of the corporation will diminish the greater good in the long run, despite creating short term profits for the corporation and producing dividends for the investors.

Some will say that is what corporations are supposed to do.

Make money, increase profit.

But, is there also a question of sustainability, longevity when looking at the choices of the corporation?

Should that matter?

To me that has become the crucial issue.

Do the actions promote a growth that is sustainable, without doing harm to the environment, using a flexible model that both labor and management can agree will allow the corporation to stay in business indefinitely.

Or, is the business model corrupted by the short term goal of profitability at the expesne of sustainability?

Did labor or management, or both, make choices that were greedy (diminsh the greater good over time at the expense of others in a desire to accumulate profits)?

Not looking for an argument about "the Greater Good" as we may define it differently, but I imagine the majority of us have a concept that it does exist.

Making money, earning profits, returning dividends can be done in a manner that allows continued, sustainable growth, or performance at a maintenance (produce and sell the same amount, but remain profitable) level, if both labor and managment share an interest in keeping the corporation solvent.

When one side, or the other, or both, agree to a business model that will corrupt the ability of the entity to sustain growth, or maintain a certain level, that is greed.

Greed will inevitably lead to the downfall of those who ascribe to it as a philosophy or business model because eventually greed is not a sustainable manner of living or doing business.

I may sell ten $500 generators for $2000 each when a hurricane is imminent, but that is not a long term sustainable model, and it is greedy.

Greed is putting "me first" without consideration of the long term consequences of the choice.

"Me first" isn't bad per se, nor inherently greedy, but coupled with the negative outcome, it becomes greedy in retrospection.

Does greed exist without a context?

If I eat all of the pizza, and no one else is there, was I greedy?

So much of what we see today is being called greedy because we can look back and see what went wrong.

So, was it greedy at the time, or only in retrospection based on the outcome and context?

I know, but I ain't saying any more.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I may sell ten $500 generators for $2000 each when a hurricane is imminent, but that is not a long term sustainable model, and it is greedy.

 

Presumably the goal is to get many generators dispersed to many hurricane victims as quickly as possible.

 

If that high price motivates other "greedy" generator vendors from surrounding states to truck in more generators very very quickly, increasing the number of generators available to hurricane victims, isn't that a good thing?

 

If your ten generators are the only ones available in a city of 50,000 hurricane victims - and no one wants to bother importing more units in a timely fashion because they can't charge a high enough price to justify that expedited service - isn't that a bad thing?

 

"Look, I know you need a generator, but I'm all out, and the next shipment isn't scheduled to arrive for another ten days...I can't afford overnight shipping for a truckload of generators..."

[John Ranalletta]

Trying to define "greed" and link it to the demise of the auto companies is a fruitless effort. There are so many reasons why

people behave as they do, trying to hang GM's failure on one or two is virtually impossible.

 

IMO, the red slice holds the lion's share of the answer. ("Greed" can be found in the "Attitudes & Values" slice.) US

automakers (companies and unions) have consistently demonstrated an uncanny inability to think and act strategically.

Each party has concentrated its efforts upon satisfying immediate appetites while sacrificing long-term viability.

Unions negotiate for the highest benefit TODAY and management concerns itself with the next quarterly earnings report.

 

Creating and holding to the "long view" takes discipline and persistence - two qualities our society, its individuals and

businesses sorely lack. As a person who constantly fights a weight gain issue, I can choose to satisfying my "need" for

a Cinnabon today or the long term benefits of saying "no".

 

Groups of people are incapable of thinking strategically - only some individuals can; so, it takes exceptionally strong,

strategic leaders who can create an atmosphere of trust and open communcation for large organizations to achieve long term

success by creating and executing a tactical plan that supports the strategic objective. Neither the unions nor the companies

have required those things in their leaders.

 

 

[Whip]

Hey Tim

 

You bring up more question than answers. I don't think you can strike a perfect or even good balance for very long. Things change, markets evolve. What is good today could cause Cancer tomorrow. The pendulum will swing back and forth between Management and Labor forever. The free market will eventually sort it out. Along the way there will be winners and losers. The people who think they are in charge of keeping the moral score don't always like the early results, but in the final analysis the market is the best judge.

 

Doors open in bidness, you walk through that door. A year later you find out that when your door opened it actually closed on someone else. Even if you thought it may hurt another person or bidness financially, you are obligated to take the opportunity in front of you and do your best with it.....all within the Law.

 

The problem with a lot of these arguments is that they are based on one big lie. That there is a finite about of money in the world and you must steal or cheat someone to get "your share".

 

If we have learned anything in the last few months it is that there is always more money. It's just paper that is used to keep score.

 

 

BTW....I have no idea what Ken is talking about.....and usually I have no trouble.

 

How cold is it in Edmonton?????

 

I bet it's even colder waiting for the bus.

 

Hi, Ken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

BTW....I have no idea what Ken is talking about.....and usually I have no trouble.

Which part, my definition of “greed”, or my reply to Steve (RightSpin) retorting his statement that greed is the human motivator?

 

Regardless I suppose, Tim (tallman) verbalized my thoughts in better words than I did – “Greed is a form of motivation. Motivation doesn't always come from greed. Is your motivation intrinsic or extrinsic? Is your motive based on what you can get, or what you can get at the expense (cost to) of another? On a personal level, greed is taking, using, more than you need.

Although not necessarily illegal, immoral, or unethical, it has a negative connotation, and for some that makes it bad.”

 

How cold is it in Edmonton?????

 

I bet it's even colder waiting for the bus.

ISFA temp, it was -25°C / -14°F at the bus stop this morning and I was just fine thank you.