Socialism at work, GM style.

[Andy]

While Obama is giving GM billions to keep it in operation, GM is devoloping "cars" people want... like the PUMA!

Now honestly, I could not make this stuff up. How could this possibly be safe? Can you imagine getting hit by a city taxi in one of these? CrownVic verses PUMA mobile... more like wheel chair with a motor.

I can see the romance already. "Hey Baby, want to ride in my PUMA?" What a absolutely stupid looking, unsafe rolling junk pile. This is exactly the type of thing I expect from a company under the controlling interest of government.

 

[Agnapostate]

What possible relevance has this to socialism?

 

[Pandora]

What possible relevance has this to socialism?

Our socialist leader has demanded GM come up with green crap to drive because our socialist leader now runs GM even though he pretends he doesn’t.

This is what GM came up with to make our ruler happy. Just hope the socialist and chief doesn’t demand you drive them. but then again they don’t look safe unless EVERYONE is driving them. Everyone but him and AlGore that is.

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

GM is being reduced to making funny looking mopeds ...

That thing is NOT the future!​

What is that thing worth? Five grand ... maybe...

That will sustain a corporation which needs to generate at least 20 grand per sale?

That is a superficial band-aide and nothing more ...

but I would use it to go to fishing - is it all terrain?? can it drag a deer threw the woods?

 

[Agnapostate]

Our socialist leader has demanded GM come up with green crap to drive because our socialist leader now runs GM even though he pretends he doesn’t.

This is what GM came up with to make our ruler happy. Just hope the socialist and chief doesn’t demand you drive them. but then again they don’t look safe unless EVERYONE is driving them. Everyone but him and AlGore that is.

Our "socialist" leader has neither supported nor attempted to implement the collectivization of the means of production...and is thus not a socialist.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Our "socialist" leader has neither supported nor attempted to implement the collectivization of the means of production...and is thus not a socialist.

He did take over GM! He did fire a private citizen! They are looking into what can be done in their (the administrations) opinion to supposedly sustain the company. Which has brought about the talk of shutting down certain vehicle lines. He did say they were to big to fail, and bail them out. I bet they are wishing that they had filed bankruptcy now!

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

Our "socialist" leader has neither supported nor attempted to implement the collectivization of the means of production...and is thus not a socialist.

Are you aware of the fact that even in a communist country the people were allowed to produce their own products to sell?

You are generalizing the term socialism with Stalin-ism. Stalin wasn't the ONLY socialist in the world.

When you start talking collectivization that's when government takes your land and makes it for the good of the whole. Almost like the Eminent Domain laws that were created in the USA.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Are you aware of the fact that even in a communist country the people were allowed to produce their own products to sell?

You are generalizing the term socialism with Stalin-ism. Stalin wasn't the ONLY socialist in the world.

When you start talking collectivization that's when government takes your land and makes it for the good of the whole. Almost like the Eminent Domain laws that were created in the USA.

Great point!

 

[Agnapostate]

He did take over GM! He did fire a private citizen! They are looking into what can be done in their (the administrations) opinion to supposedly sustain the company. Which has brought about the talk of shutting down certain vehicle lines. He did say they were to big to fail, and bail them out. I bet they are wishing that they had filed bankruptcy now!

It's a fallacy that government intervention in the economy constitutes "socialism." For instance, consider progressive taxation, often mendaciously attacked as "socialism." In reality, progressive taxation merely factors in the rather obvious principle of the diminishing rate of marginal utility. It's therefore able to minimize poverty traps for the working class, thereby improving their physical efficiency and upholding the continued functioning of capitalism.

Are you aware of the fact that even in a communist country the people were allowed to produce their own products to sell?

You are generalizing the term socialism with Stalin-ism. Stalin wasn't the ONLY socialist in the world.

I'm afraid I don't "generalize" socialism with Stalinism, precisely because Stalin and Lenin were not socialist, but state capitalists. Indeed, the USSR was fundamentally state capitalist at its core because it consolidated ownership and control of the means of production into the hands of a party elite that constituted an effective equivalent of the combined U.S. financial and coordinating classes. Socialism necessitates collective ownership of the means of production, and any meaningful form of "ownership" incorporates the right to rule over one's property, which obviously must constitute managerial control. Such conditions were not present in the Soviet Union.

When you start talking collectivization that's when government takes your land and makes it for the good of the whole. Almost like the Eminent Domain laws that were created in the USA.

Eminent domain is utilized either for the construction of public infrastructure that has the effect of ultimately upholding capitalism or for the direct facilitation of commercial development, and is thus a facet of a capitalist economic structure.

 

[Agnapostate]

Great point!

Not quite. If you wanted to maintain such a fallacious definition of socialism, you'd have to refer back to Reagan's unfortunate record of military Keynesianism.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

While Obama is giving GM billions to keep it in operation, GM is devoloping "cars" people want... like the PUMA!

Now honestly, I could not make this stuff up. How could this possibly be safe? Can you imagine getting hit by a city taxi in one of these? CrownVic verses PUMA mobile... more like wheel chair with a motor.

I can see the romance already. "Hey Baby, want to ride in my PUMA?" What a absolutely stupid looking, unsafe rolling junk pile. This is exactly the type of thing I expect from a company under the controlling interest of government.

becuse you dont understand the point or tech behind it? thats why you dont think it seems safe.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

It's a fallacy that government intervention in the economy constitutes "socialism." For instance, consider progressive taxation, often mendaciously attacked as "socialism." In reality, progressive taxation merely factors in the rather obvious principle of the diminishing rate of marginal utility. It's therefore able to minimize poverty traps for the working class, thereby improving their physical efficiency and upholding the continued functioning of capitalism.



I'm afraid I don't "generalize" socialism with Stalinism, precisely because Stalin and Lenin were not socialist, but state capitalists. Indeed, the USSR was fundamentally state capitalist at its core because it consolidated ownership and control of the means of production into the hands of a party elite that constituted an effective equivalent of the combined U.S. financial and coordinating classes. Socialism necessitates collective ownership of the means of production, and any meaningful form of "ownership" incorporates the right to rule over one's property, which obviously must constitute managerial control. Such conditions were not present in the Soviet Union.



Eminent domain is utilized either for the construction of public infrastructure that has the effect of ultimately upholding capitalism or for the direct facilitation of commercial development, and is thus a facet of a capitalist economic structure.

Wow, I have a degree in History/Poli-Sci (double major).......I have to say that is tied with one of the dumbest descriptions of Stalin, Lenin, and USSR I have had the amusing pleasure of reading. As far as eminent domain goes that is another absolute lie, and a complete distortion.

Ex. In NC the Raleigh/Durham triangle area the libs want a light rail system. They are convinced that it is absolutely necessary. Despite the fact that all other levels of public transportation run in the red every year, and are hardly used. They went in and started claiming eminent domain at locations where they wanted to put boarding stations. Two locations chosen were business's one was a garage, and the other a paint store. The went in paid the owners about 1/3 of what it was worth, and told them they had to be out by a certain time. Both business owners have since been booted, and are currently suing Wake and Durham counties as well as the state. It gets better after claiming these two properties the budget for the project got pulled. The people have finally had their voices heard, and will have the chance to vote on the Light Rail System. It will lose in a landslide I guarantee.

My point is the took away two business's, two families livelihood, and paid about 1/3 of what the business was worth. That is not capitalism, and that doesn't further capitalism. I suggest you go read up on these laws, as well as brushing up on governmental systems.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

He did take over GM! He did fire a private citizen! They are looking into what can be done in their (the administrations) opinion to supposedly sustain the company. Which has brought about the talk of shutting down certain vehicle lines. He did say they were to big to fail, and bail them out. I bet they are wishing that they had filed bankruptcy now!

actuly no he did not take over GM..

actuly no he did not fire anyone, he asked someone to step down and they did. he did not have to. He was asked to do so becuse it was felt that under him GM was not going to make the changes needed to stay afloat, and therefor not worth bailing out again. You dont give bailouts to companies if the CEO shows you he still does not get it...and yes shocking that they should have to shut down some failed lines...you know ones that are not making profits and not making cars people want...what a radical idea.
And news flash, They did not come up wiht that concept in the last 2 months while Obama was in office...

so any day you guys want to try facts...let me know.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

actuly no he did not take over GM..

actuly no he did not fire anyone, he asked someone to step down and they did. he did not have to. He was asked to do so becuse it was felt that under him GM was not going to make the changes needed to stay afloat, and therefor not worth bailing out again. You dont give bailouts to companies if the CEO shows you he still does not get it...and yes shocking that they should have to shut down some failed lines...you know ones that are not making profits and not making cars people want...what a radical idea.
And news flash, They did not come up wiht that concept in the last 2 months while Obama was in office...

so any day you guys want to try facts...let me know.

The U.S. did take over GM, I dont know how you can deny that, and who is the Commander in Chief behind the teleprompter....Obama. What do you think would have happened if Wagoner didn't step down? I'll tell you....Obama would have gathered his legions again to protest Wagoner, the media would have made him a villain, and he would have eventually resigned. So instead of suffering humiliation AIG style he chose door number 2. So yeah through lib rose colored glasses I guess he didn't fire him, but the reality is HE DID! And don't try to tell me that he would have said OK fine no bail out, and left GM alone. I'm not talk about doing away with lines like pontiac, but rather larger SUV's, trucks, and the Hummer line. All of which are successful. Especially in comparison to the smaller hybrid cars. So how about those cold hard real world facts for you. Maybe you should look up the details behind the GM situation on something other than huffington post. There is this thing call public information, look at your government sites. It is a tough, boring read at times, but I think your reading comprehension is better than Shamans, so you should be ok.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The U.S. did take over GM, I dont know how you can deny that, and who is the Commander in Chief behind the teleprompter....Obama. What do you think would have happened if Wagoner didn't step down? I'll tell you....Obama would have gathered his legions again to protest Wagoner, the media would have made him a villain, and he would have eventually resigned. So instead of suffering humiliation AIG style he chose door number 2. So yeah through lib rose colored glasses I guess he didn't fire him, but the reality is HE DID! And don't try to tell me that he would have said OK fine no bail out, and left GM alone. I'm not talk about doing away with lines like pontiac, but rather larger SUV's, trucks, and the Hummer line. All of which are successful. Especially in comparison to the smaller hybrid cars. So how about those cold hard real world facts for you. Maybe you should look up the details behind the GM situation on something other than huffington post. There is this thing call public information, look at your government sites. It is a tough, boring read at times, but I think your reading comprehension is better than Shamans, so you should be ok.

yes we all know the demand for Hummers is huge...while of course small fuel effecent cars...they cant make fast enough for some. But you keep thinking the H2 is the one that will save GM...people like you are why it is where it is.

And since you claim they are a success...care to tell me how much profit the Hummer line makes? I mean you say its a success...so how so? I drive by the lot and see a load of them on the lot....same ones from months ago. GM dropped Millions into that Hummer line...while Toyota was doing the same with the Prius...guess what one is the big seller and what company is doing better? I worked for Ford, and guess what, most of the people that came in...wanted the Focus...the fusion, escape, and the Hybred Escape that was so backorderd we never even had one on the lot for more then a few hours. Large trucks? very few, and most wanted used ones because they where not going to spend the money for them, with 4 buck gas. we sold very few regardless. The F-150 was a better truck, but we lost a lot of sales to Toyota tundra based on one factor...MPG...that was the main thing my f-150 customers said they did not like about the F-150, is they wanted better mpg. They knew it outdid the tundra in every other way...but 3mpg extra was a deal breaker often.

but go ahead, tell me what profitable cars the government is saying you cant make anymore ( not that GM itself decided to not make) and then tell me how much money that line made per year...since you know they are a success.

also one problem with GM, is it makes the same vehicle in about 5 lines,,with new names, and thinks that's variety...they could streamline it a lot more in many cases.