+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: GM reports 62% annual profit increase (/showthread.php?tid=132096)
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - August West - 02-17-2012
Trouble wrote:
I don't have a link and I don't care enough to search for one.
Typical. Game, Set, Match to Ted King.
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - Trouble - 02-17-2012
Grateful11 wrote: Let me ask you this are you speaking ofthe actual workers or the Union Leaders such as General Chairman and up?
Generally the union leaders and stewards, but many workers are the same. Most union workers are hard workers who want to do a good job. Many workers use the "union shield" to do the absolute least work required. I've been on both sides of labor and I have absolutely no use for unions. I could go into a long diatribe about how unions hurt businesses, keep worthless union members employed, steal from the unborn, and their only interests are collecting dues and increasing their memberships. I think they are counterproductive. Unions should also lose the ability to have dues deducted automatically from paychecks. Public unions are even worse. Pure evil there.
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - Trouble - 02-17-2012
August West wrote:
[quote=Trouble]
I don't have a link and I don't care enough to search for one.
Typical. Game, Set, Match to Ted King.
Take it any way you want. And like you would accept any link I provided anyway? Thanks for the laugh.
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - Grace62 - 02-17-2012
August West wrote:
[quote=Trouble]
I don't have a link and I don't care enough to search for one.
Typical. Game, Set, Match to Ted King.
Yep.
I can see why Trouble can't find a link to support his opinion, but the 8 posts here certainly show that he cares.
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - Trouble - 02-17-2012
Grace62 wrote:
[quote=August West]
[quote=Trouble]
I don't have a link and I don't care enough to search for one.
Typical. Game, Set, Match to Ted King.
Yep.
I can see why Trouble can't find a link to support his opinion, but the 8 posts here certainly show that he cares.
God damn people. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law By the way, 8 posts show that I am willing to participate, but I don't really care about spending a substantial amount of time searching for a link and posting a long reply with quotes when the majority of people here will not read said reply and cite with an open mind. To recap, I'll reply to you as long as I'm not pissing away too much of my time.
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - Grace62 - 02-17-2012
Trouble wrote:
(bad words) http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law By the way, 8 posts show that I am willing to participate, but I don't really care about spending a substantial amount of time searching for a link and posting a long reply with quotes when the majority of people here will not read said reply and cite with an open mind. To recap, I'll reply to you as long as I'm not pissing away too much of my time.
Watch the profanity son. Where in that right wing essay that you provided is the name of the company or companies that would have provided the private financing for GM or Chrysler, in 2008?
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - Trouble - 02-17-2012
Grace62 wrote: Watch the profanity son. Where in that right wing essay that you provided is the name of the company or companies that would have provided the private financing for GM or Chrysler, in 2008?
What does that have to do with anything?
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - Grace62 - 02-17-2012
Trouble wrote:
[quote=Grace62]Watch the profanity son. Where in that right wing essay that you provided is the name of the company or companies that would have provided the private financing for GM or Chrysler, in 2008?
What does that have to do with anything?
Everything. You're saying that GM and Chrysler could have avoided being liquified. That means capital would have to be available to make the purchases, capital other than a gov't loan. Economists are in agreement that no such non-gov't capital was available in 2008. So I'm asking you to provide the source of that capital, since you are 100% sure, as you say below , that liquidation "never would have happened."
Never would have happened. GM is too big and selling more than enough around the world to carry the company. The problem is the UAW severely weakens them. Sure, GM can carry the union burden when the economy is rolling. Slow down the economy and the UAW cripples them.
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - Trouble - 02-17-2012
Grace62 wrote: Everything.
So what you are asking for is the business plan for a situation that GM and the government conspired to make sure would never occur? That would be your proof? Ok. Sure.
Re: GM reports 62% annual profit increase - Grace62 - 02-17-2012
Trouble wrote:
[quote=Grace62]Everything.
So what you are asking for is the business plan for a situation that GM and the government conspired to make sure would never occur? That would be your proof? Ok. Sure.
Are you kidding me? GM and Chrysler went around the world with their hats in their hands. No takers. Only Uncle Sam could make the loan, or creditors were going to come in and liquidate the place.
Our leaders made the right call.
Oppose the government loan if you like, but stick to facts. Plenty of people think GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go under, but they aren't pretending that a private white knight was hanging around to prevent the worst from happening.