What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

DaveStPaul said:
What I've been starting to wonder is: What if America's post-WWII successes weren't because we have an innate edge, based on more freedom, more entrepreneurship, more opportunity, more immigrants' genes, etc.; what if it was only because we had more people? More people means more factories, quicker improvements, etc etc, eventually the cheapest products, and now the world wants to buy everything from you. Bingo, prosperity.

Obviously you have to have a society set up in a way that allows all those people to get stuff done. China's had more people than the US forever, but they (to say the least) didn't have things set up to make things very well. But what if it was only a matter of time until the other largest countries started seeing that if you get your basic **** together and have a bunch of factories making a bunch of products, you can't help but end up making them cheaper, and then you're selling, and your people are getting jobs, etc.?

I don't know if I really think all this yet. And China clearly has issues to work out in the near future. But if economic success on a world-wide stage turns out to be largely a matter of who has more people, then all the things Rover and FlagDUDE are observing are both true, but not relevant to the big picture.
Click to expand...

Considering the USA has revolutionised use of the assembly line to the point where companies are starting to use robotic drones to perform this manual work (and in the case of computer chips, it's out of necessity due to the size), the amount of labour is starting to become a wash (it isn't there yet, but it's on its way). You're absolutely correct in that the country needs to get its **** together when it comes to some of our technologies (or development thereof) and start to build.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Rover said:
Ahhh, the old "union" strawman argument out of a knuckledragger.

Tell me flaggy, since unions have been losing influence over the last 40 years, one would think the plight of US workers should be getting better over that time right? Is it your assertion that workers in the manufacturing sector are better off nowadays? (I don't expect you to answer that question).
Click to expand...
You need to brush up on the concept of cause and effect.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Rover said:
Regarding the product, I notice you keep avoiding GM's #1 status in China because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of the subject..
Click to expand...

i'll ask you since you appear to know as resident expert on GM-China....
are the cars GM sells in china imported? or produced 'domestically'?
cost to make?
sell price?
# of? (i still see too many chinaman riding bicycles)
share of that $0.90/sh profit this quarter that came from prc?

..this you probably don't know, but i'll still ask
US epa type restrictions on prc production and their cost to gm's unit cost on prc produced autos?

thank you in advance!
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Bob Gray said:
I've been wondering when he'd do this as part of his arsenal of giveaways to try to win reelection. Used to be the petroleum reserves didn't get touched unless there was a significant problem of some sort.
Click to expand...

People thinking $3.75/gal gasoline is a "significant problem" does not fall on deaf ears.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

FlagDUDE08 said:
People thinking $3.75/gal gasoline is a "significant problem" does not fall on deaf ears.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Obama will give me some money to compensate me for the cactus prikclers I got in my arm last weekend when I was doing yard work? After all, that's what Americans do, help (read give money) to one another.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

FlagDUDE08 said:
Hang on one second, how is it the right wing's fault that health care is attached to employment? Sure, it was used as a competitive edge during the wage freezes of World War II, but wouldn't that choice continue to remain entirely with the private sector, which last time I checked, is non-partisan? Heck, how about the union bosses demanding employers provide health care for their employees?
Click to expand...

I think he means that the current "conservatives" in the GOP want to keep the system as is. (which is attached to employment) The liberals (and those of us that want massive overhaul because the system sucks) want single payer. And by that we mean real single payer, not the fake definition of single payer Fresh Fish came up with. :D

BTW I bought a GM vehicle in February...a 2010 Impala and I love it :)
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Handyman said:
I think he means that the current "conservatives" in the GOP want to keep the system as is. (which is attached to employment) The liberals (and those of us that want massive overhaul because the system sucks) want single payer. And by that we mean real single payer, not the fake definition of single payer Fresh Fish came up with. :D

BTW I bought a GM vehicle in February...a 2010 Impala and I love it :)
Click to expand...

By single payer, you mean you want mommy and daddy government to give you everything, similar to exactly how Medicare works. Death panels, here we come.

I bought a 2008 TrailBlazer last year, and already am having some issues.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

FlagDUDE08 said:
By single payer, you mean you want mommy and daddy government to give you everything, similar to exactly how Medicare works. Death panels, here we come.

I bought a 2008 TrailBlazer last year, and already am having some issues.
Click to expand...

2004 Audi A4. I've had a series of repairs. But man, can that car corner.

You want reliability...its pretty much Japanese.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

5mn_Major said:
Ya...German cars are indeed engineered for performance like nothin I've driven. Tried a used BMW for a couple years also. But they have reliability problems.
Click to expand...

Even the VW's? Obviously Germans look at performance, what with their "recommended 81.25 MPH" highway system.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

mookie1995 said:
i'll ask you since you appear to know as resident expert on GM-China....
are the cars GM sells in china imported? or produced 'domestically'?
cost to make?
sell price?
# of? (i still see too many chinaman riding bicycles)
share of that $0.90/sh profit this quarter that came from prc?

..this you probably don't know, but i'll still ask
US epa type restrictions on prc production and their cost to gm's unit cost on prc produced autos?

thank you in advance!
Click to expand...


China & US sales both approx 2.5M vehicles out of 9M sold globally. Cars are generally manufactured over there with some joint partnernships and a couple controlled by GM itself. Operating income in China was 1.9B vs 7.2B in North America for 2011. Also the company regained the worldwide #1 car maker designation it had lost for a couple of years to Toyota.

DaveStPaul said:
What I've been starting to wonder is: What if America's post-WWII successes weren't because we have an innate edge, based on more freedom, more entrepreneurship, more opportunity, more immigrants' genes, etc.; what if it was only because we had more people? More people means more factories, quicker improvements, etc etc, eventually the cheapest products, and now the world wants to buy everything from you. Bingo, prosperity.

Obviously you have to have a society set up in a way that allows all those people to get stuff done. China's had more people than the US forever, but they (to say the least) didn't have things set up to make things very well. But what if it was only a matter of time until the other largest countries started seeing that if you get your basic **** together and have a bunch of factories making a bunch of products, you can't help but end up making them cheaper, and then you're selling, and your people are getting jobs, etc.?

I don't know if I really think all this yet. And China clearly has issues to work out in the near future. But if economic success on a world-wide stage turns out to be largely a matter of who has more people, then all the things Rover and FlagDUDE are observing are both true, but not relevant to the big picture.
Click to expand...

A very good question. My take is that the US was in a situation in the 1950's that it will most likely never be in again, where most of Asia was still a backwater while Europe was destroyed by the worst war mankind has ever seen. Interestingly this is the era conservatives who are generally older tend to like to revisit.

In the 50's a laissez faire approach to business may have been a good idea as the US was unchallenged as a global economic power. Therefore, there would be no need to intervene because the overall picture (US growth and dominance) wouldn't be affected. The problem which rightward leaning people have trouble realizing is that this approach became hopelessly out of date by the 70's at the latest as first Japan then China and others started catching up. As the 80's rolled around, a faulty and disasterous thought process took hold that we need not manufacture goods anymore but that a service economy would do the trick so do nothing to help businesses dealing with illegal trade practices such as dumping or using slave laborers to produce cheaper.

What we have learned since then, as industry after industry has gone overseas (electronics, textiles, steel, etc) is that infact we can't just rely on a service industry to sustain the economy. Furthermore, other countries who do support their domestic companies when needed ate our lunch. Some would say this is inevitable due to wage differences. I don't. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th biggest economies tend to be net exporters over time. Of those, only one, China, gets by on cheap labor. Germany and Japan are so called "high cost" economies who are still managing to produce good for export. That's why conservatism has no practical application in today's world. Maybe it did work 60 years ago, but times change and our friends on the right stubbornly refuse to come to grips with that, and would rather enact policies fit for that bygone era.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Rover said:
China & US sales both approx 2.5M vehicles out of 9M sold globally. Cars are generally manufactured over there with some joint partnernships and a couple controlled by GM itself. Operating income in China was 1.9B vs 7.2B in North America for 2011. Also the company regained the worldwide #1 car maker designation it had lost for a couple of years to Toyota.



A very good question. My take is that the US was in a situation in the 1950's that it will most likely never be in again, where most of Asia was still a backwater while Europe was destroyed by the worst war mankind has ever seen. Interestingly this is the era conservatives who are generally older tend to like to revisit.

In the 50's a laissez faire approach to business may have been a good idea as the US was unchallenged as a global economic power. Therefore, there would be no need to intervene because the overall picture (US growth and dominance) wouldn't be affected. The problem which rightward leaning people have trouble realizing is that this approach became hopelessly out of date by the 70's at the latest as first Japan then China and others started catching up. As the 80's rolled around, a faulty and disasterous thought process took hold that we need not manufacture goods anymore but that a service economy would do the trick so do nothing to help businesses dealing with illegal trade practices such as dumping or using slave laborers to produce cheaper.

What we have learned since then, as industry after industry has gone overseas (electronics, textiles, steel, etc) is that infact we can't just rely on a service industry to sustain the economy. Furthermore, other countries who do support their domestic companies when needed ate our lunch. Some would say this is inevitable due to wage differences. I don't. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th biggest economies tend to be net exporters over time. Of those, only one, China, gets by on cheap labor. Germany and Japan are so called "high cost" economies who are still managing to produce good for export. That's why conservatism has no practical application in today's world. Maybe it did work 60 years ago, but times change and our friends on the right stubbornly refuse to come to grips with that, and would rather enact policies fit for that bygone era.
Click to expand...

If you want to look at policy, that's understandable, but the thing to not do is enact a policy that is designed to screw us over. As much as you don't want conservatives to live in the 1950's, I don't want liberals to continue to live in the 1900's. We're at the point where people are educated enough to make good decisions about their careers and health (at least I would think), so perhaps it's time to back off on some of the legislation. Back off on the minimum wage requirements, as that will help to allow more people to be hired instead of causing an artificial price floor. Also, no more bailouts or government takeovers. If they fail, let them fail. The government is getting to the point where it itself is becoming a monopoly, and should be under the audition of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Rover said:
Ummmm....Bill, you need to check your Daily Knuckledragger e-mail updates. Somebody posted this two pages ago. Don't you guys talk to each other? :D:confused:
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should tell your buddies to check your daily libtard updates, because it's starting to sound like a broken record. ;)
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Rover said:
Ummmm....Bill, you need to check your Daily Knuckledragger e-mail updates. Somebody posted this two pages ago. Don't you guys talk to each other? :D:confused:
Click to expand...
Do you seriously think GM is in fine shape?
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Bill said:
Do you seriously think GM is in fine shape?
Click to expand...


Can't say what the standard for "fine" shape is but I'll define what I think about it.

1) Company is profitable to a significant degree (7.6Bn last year I believe)

2) Company is far better off than pre-bankrupcy where too much debt and bad deals with workers was strangling company (now #1 automaker again).

3) US Govt will end up making money on the deal in total even if selling the stock at a loss.

Somebody asked me if I have bought GM stock. I actually bought Ford stock, for one simple reason which was Ford was trading @ 2X earnings while GM was higher. Unfortunately for me Ford is STILL trading at 2X earnings :mad: but c'est la vie. GM is now a viable going concern, and who among us would have thought that three years ago? The notion that its about to become bankrupt again is from one conservative Club for Growth hack writing for Forbes who has no insight into the industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top