FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Boycott GM says Limbaugh & Hope-to-Fail crowd

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News
 


handfleisch
Quote:
Right-wing radio hosts Hewitt and Limbaugh back GM boycott
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -- A pair of right-wing radio hosts says there's only one choice for conservatives angry about government involvement in the auto industry: Boycott GM.

"Nobody wants to support an Obama company," Rush Limbaugh told his audience Friday, citing a poll showing that 17 percent of Americans backed a boycott of GM.

"Every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise," conservative talker Hugh Hewitt wrote online last week.


http://www.detnews.com/article/20090609/AUTO01/906090329/1148/AUTO01/Right-wing+radio+hosts+Hewitt+and+Limbaugh+back+GM+boycott

Boycott an American company with hardworking employees providing for their families during a time of economic crisis? These people have totally lost it.
Solon_Poledourus
The funny part is, 5 years ago those were the same people telling us to "buy American cars". Suddenly, GM and Chrysler aren't good enough for us, according to Mr. Limpballs.
Xanatos
While I agree that government involvement in the auto industry is completely wrong, I don't think that boycotting GM is the answer.
ocalhoun
It would be a good way to send a powerful message against government bail-outs and buy-outs.

They should be allowed to fail, but the government won't let them... So, thwarting the government on that issue would be one option, though it's unlikely to succeed.

Those factories won't vanish, and neither will the workers, the designs, or the companies. They will all be bought (likely at a bargain price) by somebody (American or otherwise) who thinks they can make a new future out of the fallen giant.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
It would be a good way to send a powerful message against government bail-outs and buy-outs.

They should be allowed to fail, but the government won't let them... So, thwarting the government on that issue would be one option, though it's unlikely to succeed.
I still say that if the people have decided to bail out banks, then they should be bailing out the auto industry as well. With the banks it was more a question of wealthy people losing their wealth, and with the auto industry it is real people who need to keep their real jobs.

I wish they could get rid of the upper layers of executives, both in the big Banks and the auto industry however, as obviously they have proven that they can't run the Banks and auto industry and a different management has to be put in place. Perhaps they need to go back to scratch and do without the fancy middle layers of management and Departments and get to know the customers and their workers. Get back to basics.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:


I wish they could get rid of the upper layers of executives, both in the big Banks and the auto industry

You know what's a great way to do that?
Let the company fail, and be bought by someone else. They buyer certainly won't keep senior management in place because they've ruined the company once already.
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
You know what's a great way to do that?
Let the company fail, and be bought by someone else. They buyer certainly won't keep senior management in place because they've ruined the company once already.
Another upside is that there's a good chance the new owners will keep the factory workers and dealership employees.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
You know what's a great way to do that?
Let the company fail, and be bought by someone else. They buyer certainly won't keep senior management in place because they've ruined the company once already.
Right, they should never have bailed out the big banks in the first place. Better yet, they should never have allowed banks to grow as big as they are. At the very least there should be legislation that forces the big banks to be smaller, there should be a much clearer division between investments and core banking services. In essence the banks have been competing with investment banks and seem to have been unfairly protected when their real estate investments struck a whammy. Perhaps similarly the auto industry should be smaller as well. Really wish that the bail-out in January would never have occurred. Government interference in economic matters can never be good.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Government interference in economic matters can never be good.
Statement of the century. You get 394.6 zillion Poledours(the soon to be currency of Poledourustan).

I have a bank account, and if I go into the negative, I get charged a fee. If I let that negative balance fester for too long, my account gets shut down, and my credit score takes a major hit. The US government regularly goes into the negative, and it stays like that for years. And yet, when a financial crisis hits the nation, who jumps in to help? The very people who prove time and again, their inability to balance a checkbook.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Government interference in economic matters can never be good.
Statement of the century. You get 394.6 zillion Poledours(the soon to be currency of Poledourustan).

I have a bank account, and if I go into the negative, I get charged a fee. If I let that negative balance fester for too long, my account gets shut down, and my credit score takes a major hit. The US government regularly goes into the negative, and it stays like that for years. And yet, when a financial crisis hits the nation, who jumps in to help? The very people who prove time and again, their inability to balance a checkbook.
Thanks for this Solon, makes me feel good, as more than this knowledge, I just can't get it that people are accepting the debt, so much so that 1.2-trillion was easy to sign, without even reading the small letters, nor asking real questions not only about the debt, but why it was necessary, what it will be spent on, and how the spending will be recorded and the info shared with the tax payers. People have just become so passive, debt does not seem to be debt anymore.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps similarly the auto industry should be smaller as well.

I would like that.

It would be better, I think, if Chevy, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Hummer, et cetera were all completely independent companies competing with each other. Then, if one fails, there's no huge economic problem. Also, with the greater variety of car models they'll be producing, there's bound to be some of exceptional quality (especially given the competing design philosophies).
Moonspider
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps similarly the auto industry should be smaller as well.

I would like that.

It would be better, I think, if Chevy, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Hummer, et cetera were all completely independent companies competing with each other. Then, if one fails, there's no huge economic problem. Also, with the greater variety of car models they'll be producing, there's bound to be some of exceptional quality (especially given the competing design philosophies).


The problem is that each company would not possess a diverse product line, exposing them to far greater risk in the market place. When you invest for retirement do you pick out one company or a small group of companies in the same industry and ride it out for forty or fifty years? No, you typically invest in a large number of companies across a variety of industries to mitigate your risk.

I work for a wine company which has a very diverse product line. Our high-end wine sales are down with the recession, but our mid-range and low-end wine sales are up. If we just sold high-end wine, we'd be hurting at this point and probably laying full-time employees off at the least. If we only sold mid- or low-end wines, the company would not be enjoying the higher profit margins available during good economic times.

Respectfully,
M
Solon_Poledourus
Moonspider wrote:
The problem is that each company would not possess a diverse product line, exposing them to far greater risk in the market place.
I agree, it's a good point. But isn't this why auto manufacturers have baseline models, high end models, and mid line models of the same vehicle? Even a smaller company with less diverse designs could still sell variations on those designs which cater to the customers spending abilities.
Moonspider
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
The problem is that each company would not possess a diverse product line, exposing them to far greater risk in the market place.
I agree, it's a good point. But isn't this why auto manufacturers have baseline models, high end models, and mid line models of the same vehicle? Even a smaller company with less diverse designs could still sell variations on those designs which cater to the customers spending abilities.


True, a name like Pontiac or Chevrolet could have a more diverse line of models. But a low-end Hummer or Cadillac? A luxury Saturn?

A company doesn't have to be diversified as long as they can find and hold a niche market. Some of the U.S. company's brands (e.g. Hummer) do in fact target a niche market. But larger companies with a lot of overhead typically need a diverse product line to maintain a profitable standing independent of macroeconomic conditions.

Respectfully,
M
Solon_Poledourus
Moonspider wrote:
True, a name like Pontiac or Chevrolet could have a more diverse line of models. But a low-end Hummer or Cadillac? A luxury Saturn?
Low-end Hummer=Yukon. And I would actually love to see a luxury Saturn. These changes could force designers and marketers to think about these things.
Quote:
A company doesn't have to be diversified as long as they can find and hold a niche market. Some of the U.S. company's brands (e.g. Hummer) do in fact target a niche market. But larger companies with a lot of overhead typically need a diverse product line to maintain a profitable standing independent of macroeconomic conditions.
Very true. As for the Hummer... I think it should go the way of the Do-Do. If the brand can survive in their niche market through this crisis, good for them, otherwise, they are the ones that we have to lose in order to get our luxury Saturns on the road.

My brother has been working for Dodge for about 15 years now. He has invested his entire life into the company, and now they are shutting down 900-and-some-odd dealerships nationwide. As much as he loves the company, he recognizes the HUGE mistakes they have made to get to this point(I really can't get into it, because I'm not as knowledgeable on the matter as he). It's really sad. He has a wife and 2 kids to support, and Dodge is giving him nothing for his loyalty of a decade and a half, except a "dear john letter". As he puts it, "It's sickening how companies always expect loyalty, but never give it".

How true that is...
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:

My brother has been working for Dodge for about 15 years now. He has invested his entire life into the company, and now they are shutting down 900-and-some-odd dealerships nationwide. As much as he loves the company, he recognizes the HUGE mistakes they have made to get to this point(I really can't get into it, because I'm not as knowledgeable on the matter as he). It's really sad. He has a wife and 2 kids to support, and Dodge is giving him nothing for his loyalty of a decade and a half, except a "dear john letter". As he puts it, "It's sickening how companies always expect loyalty, but never give it".

And if the different brands were really different companies, he could just say, 'well, the Dodge dealership closed, but with my experience in the field, I should be able to get a job at the Jeep dealership down the road...'
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
And if the different brands were really different companies, he could just say, 'well, the Dodge dealership closed, but with my experience in the field, I should be able to get a job at the Jeep dealership down the road...'
Ironically, that's what he is doing. Unfortunately, "down the road" translates to half a state away, as it's the only Jeep dealership within a few hours of driving that's staying open. And it's actually been closed as well, but has been bought by another company. The crappy thing is, because Dodge no longer has their name on it, the warranty work is gone, which was more than half of the work those mechanics get.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Very true. As for the Hummer... I think it should go the way of the Do-Do. If the brand can survive in their niche market through this crisis, good for them, otherwise, they are the ones that we have to lose in order to get our luxury Saturns on the road.
Hummer is actually doing very well in the Middle East. It is quite a popular vehicle here. Not sure how long that will last as Arabic taste can change overnight. They do like luxury vehicles though and usually buy on the upper side of the market.
Related topics

Republican strategy, via Limbaugh: Wanting Obama to fail
CIA chief: Cheney practically hoping for terrorism on US
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Califoria drivers exam
Hello 2 all from Israel!
teaching manners
Meaning about Eminem
is IT services really good field ?
403 on URLs that end with "cp"
Rants, Rants, Rants
What should I do about my neighbor's dog?
Did earth's life forms come from Mars?
How best to release these ?
More hints towards a FFVII Remake.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.