GM or WS?

Was it General Motors (GM) or was it Wall Stree (WS) that decided that it was necessary to move jobs away from USA to get lower payrolls?
The demonstrations we see today against WS are reflecting the facts that many
big corporations like GM have closed down plants and started new plants in other countries and left people high and dry without jobs.
Who is to blame?
It is hard to protest against GM and others who are no longer in the US so the protesters are going against WS.
So whose fault is it anyway?
Is it WS or GM?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/20/11 12:24 PM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

big corporations like GM have closed down plants and started new plants in other countries and left people high and dry without jobs.

May both become guests of honor at an asteroid strike.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Both.....
Stocks as currently implemented (at least in the US) are a sort of Ponzi scheme (or maybe I should just say a scam) - most stock don't pay significant dividends, so the only way they qualify as an investment is if the price goes up. But what actually makes the stock go up? As best I can tell it is based mostly on public preception. What drives positive public preception (and therefore increased demand for the stock and therefore a higher price)? Positive press. What drives positive press? Either actual increasing profits or actions that people believe will result in increasing profits. Most people who control large stock purchasing decisions (large investment funds, etc) think US workers are overpaid and lazy and therefore any decision that moves jobs offshore appears to be positive news that should result in an increase in stock prices - at least in the short term. And this is the real problem - most fund managers only live in the now. They need to appear to be growing the funds every day. So they are constantly looking for news that will lead people to think profits will go up. And since most executives have compensation packages that are heavily weighted with stock options, they also want stock prices to go up. And even in cases where the options can only be exercised long term, executives are still under a lot of pressure from fund managers to do things NOW to generate positive press and hopefully increased stock prices. So all the incentives at the top are to do things to generate short term profit increases or at least the preception that there will shortly be increases in profits. Also, since most high exectutives can't admit they have no idea how to actually run a compny properly, exectives fall back on strategies that have resulted in positive results in the past or for other companies, even though in many cases the "positive results" are illustionary. The illusion is good enough in the short run. And since it is almost impossible for small stockholders to force upper management changes, bad management is free to keep making decisions that boost stock prices in the short term, while actually running the company into the ground. What happened at Ford and GM illustrates my point. In the 1990's and 2000's both companies were making lots of money building trucks. Nasser at Ford blew most of these profits buying failing European brands. GM blew it on more and more trucks and SUV models. I think a lot of people recognized that both companies could not continue on the path their CEO's had selected. While trucks and SUV were incredibly profitable, goverment regulations, increasing gas costs, etc. sooner or later were going to kill these profits (or at least greatly reduce them). At GM, the executives essentially refused to see this (or at leat make resonable decisions based on the facts). They were certain if they started moving toward smaller more fuel efficient cars, profits would decrease. So in the short run, to protect profits, they continued emphasizing trucks and SUVs. Ford had the same problem. The big difference is that at Ford a relatively small number of stockholders (the Ford family) can force changes. They did this. And apparently after letting Bill Ford muddle around for a couple of years they were able to hire a man to run the company that had a clue. They almost waited to long....almost. I think Ford is still in somewhat of a precarious position since they actually have to repay their creditiors from the last 20 years, whereas GM and Chrysler managed to stick their creditiors with a lump of coal (gratis the US Government).
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/10/2011 11:36 AM, C. E. White wrote:

It is more than over priced workers, unions and crap. It is endemic through the whole system. But always comes back to big governmetn we can't afford.
If I get taxed 40%, I will charge more for my services. Go ahead, tax gas at $100/barrel in tax greed, it will just double or triple the prices at the pump. In the end, big taxing government causes inflated economies that can't compete.
Even bad over paid corrupt management has a hand. Executive botches a deal, lay off some workers and get a bonus.
Politicians too, they prey on the ignorance of the people saying it is Wall Street or companies or the rich....just blame deflection from the standard Harvard political warfare book. Get them to hate others and they will hate you less is 0bama's theme here.
GM will never pay it full debt. Neither will Chrysler.
Worse, USA and Canada don't get it yet. Government can't solve this economic problem because their policy on fiscal corruption management and the size of government is the problem.
Follow the reality. Bernanke prints money and inflation. Inflation means incomes will buy less goods, less goods is less jobs. Less jobs is government tax greed as revenues dry up. Less jobs even mean more unemployed.
5% is a 1/20h drop in consumption, but 2 in 20 loose jobs for 5% inflation. Everyone acquires one less unit, 19/20 on consumption. Then the one that got laid off, also consumes say 3/20 for the income drop. So 5% of inflation over incomes is 10% unemployed. Doesn't take much. Add in hidden and real tax increases like property taxes, it comes right out of economic circulation to government consumption of wealth.
Ends up being like a snake eating its own tail while giving birth, the debt will get your kids debt-tax slavery.
But with all this fraud and bullshit, many a flabagers expect a stable economy with a stable job base built on a currency fraud, bank corrupted government statism wholesale fraud....
But if being liberal-socialist fleabagger, you wouldn't hold government accountable.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/10/2011 10:24 AM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I would say everyone had a part. Making stuff in north America is stupid price. Too much taxes, corruption, more taxes and union...reward the losers and penalize the producers mentality.
Basic economics does the rest. No escaping reality for the liberal fleabaggers. They even buy foreign because it be cheaper and often a better product. Or even if it is domestic, Asian components inside.

big corporations like GM have closed down plants and started new plants in other countries and left people high and dry without jobs. No one is buying GM around where I live, more than 1/2 the dealers are gone or changed brands. Crappy quaity and tax system corruption for GM delinquents has a lot to do with. The brand damage is here to stay.

Everyone from poor to rich. Anyone who voted for corruption for personal greed, ignoring integrity for pandering politicians. Expensive over priced tax as inflation....

Yep.
Everyones. Esecially liberalism that has blatantly ignored the conservative values of integrity, honesty and equity. Oh, we can just tax more...and more...mentality and ignore basic economics. As Bernanke can just print/counterfeit it and 0bama can debt/bailout/corruption spend it.
And where reality strikes, fleabaggers go into denial.

Everyone. GE is moving medial too. I even know of another that is moving 8000 jobs from the midwest. No sense in paying US taxes on items made in China and sold in China too, easier just to move like Seagate and others.
But fleabaggers are clueless bunch. Ignore reality and they hate it when it bites.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What the unrest is all about is no longer about socialism and such it is more about the inequality in the system as well as joblessness.
The big cats in WS have access to and control much of the money and through that they have Lobbyists and control as well as own the politicians.
They own them all so it is no difference between the two major parties.
Obama is a major mistake and only put up there to be a nice front. Some may argue that the front is not so very nice but he is not really that black and he has a nice wife and kids and he dresses in clean cloths and he is not as stupid as Bush.
There is no candidate any different from him available so he will become reelected and nothing will change.
The former Unions are both highly involved in politics and they can only sit and watch while the jobs are transported to other countries.
GM is no longer any power factor having gone bankrupt and changed a little bit in management.
As soon as anyone in the Unions would try to make life difficult for a factory the factory is simply closed down so the Unions say as little as possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.