I was referring to global market share. Market share that was, in
part developed by bombing (or benefitting from the bombing) of other
motor vehicle manufacturer's plants thereby destroying competitors
production capacity (UK, Germany, etc)
upper class and that collectively; through Charity we have destroyed
the garment production industry in Africa? Through subsidies we have
destroyed the profitable sustainable farming in South America?
Through embargo's and subterfuge we have destroyed the Soviet block's
standard of living and environmental sustain ability as well as their
secure hold on their weapons? Through the world bank we have forced
open immature markets and flooded them with consumer goods destroying
their developing manufacturers.
Here's the crux of the question: How much did YOU personally do to
guarantee these actions took place? How much more productive do you
feel you are than an East Indian University graduate working for
pennies on your dollar?
Now take that relative comparison and transpose it onto any American
CEO's wages relative to any other cultures CEO's wages. Still think
that American CEO's are exponentially better?
Compare Standard of Living per hour worked Norwegian to American.
Might come as a bit of a shock to you. Many Europeans only work 35
hours per week v/s 45-55 hours per week in the US and England
(I should specify that hours worked apply for men primarily).
I wasn't inferring that there would be a return to Feudalism, merely
that as an aging and fractionally small percentage of the worlds
population we should be thinking of a way of increasing everyone's
wealth not just the wealth of a few.
If things continue as they have been the past 10-20 years the US will
be looking to China for Aid and support in the Future just as England
now looks to the US.
I really only have one comment to make.... how is the Stock Market a big
Casino that I "feed my money into so they can live like a Sultan"? I get
mine too. GM pays a $.50/sh dividend each quarter. That is a pretty decent
dividend, especially for an auto manufacturer. Their stock is on a decent
rise from the fall of the market a few years ago. So I don't see how you
are getting screwed on it here. Perhaps if you knew how to make Your Money
Work For You, you wouldn't be so angry. This is a capitalistic society.
Those who work for it are rewarded for it. Sure, Mr Wagoner may get paid a
lot. Part of it may be greed, it may be he is worth it, it may be something
else. But look at someone like Henry Ford, he worked tirelessly for years
to get his auto company off the ground. He probably spent nights upon
nights without sleep, working his ass off, and he was rewarded for it. He
made millions, had one of the most powerful companies in the U.S., and there
were people who complained about his ways. But I tell you what, if that man
offered me a job, I would have taken it and never complained one bit about
it. Some companies lie, cheat, steal, but it is our job to educate
ourselves on what it is those companies do. Knowledge is the key to success
in our world. If you don't like capitalism, I would suggest a country like
Sweeden or Switzerland, perhaps even Cuba, North Korea, or Vietnam where
everyone is equal (at least according to the rules of communism, but
something tells me they are using that word a little loosely... I see
dictatorship... but what do I know.) and gets equal pay based off their job
description and gets equal food and gets equal housing and the same
clothing. Then you won't have to worry about anyone making $14.7 million
dollars a year, it will be like $100 a year. You won't have to worry about
someone having 17 cows to your 1 or anything, at least in theory, but I am
pretty sure in North Korea, they are lucky to have a cow (or ox). I do
think some CEO's make too much money, and in a way I think some regulation
should be in place, such as when American Airlines is cutting jobs, cutting
pay, and filing bankruptcy but the CEO is giving himself a payraise and a
bonus it seems a little backassward. Although by filing bankruptcy the
courts will decide that stuff. But still. Kmart is another example,
offering loans to top executive and pay increases and generous use of
company equipment while closing stores and cutting employess instead of
investing in the company which drove it into the ground. But I can't
complain much cause such is the world of capitalism.
Once again you have chosen to base your opinion on faulty
information. The market has expanded from the vehicles available
from around five manufactures in the US to the vehicles from
around a dozen manufacture for all over
the world. The volume of sales has grown from around 6 million
annually then to around 18 million annually
today. The fact is GM sells more vehicles today than
they did back in the early fifties when they commanded
50% of all vehicles sold in the US.
Apparently you don't even understand your own posts.
You said 'GM management manages to go from 50% market
share to 28% market share in a couple of decades.'
The ONLY time GM was at 50% was in the fifties. The
fact remains the volume of sales has grown from around
6 million, the time GM sold 51% of the vehicles sold
in the US annually, to around 18 million today of which
GM sells around 28%. GM sells more vehicle today, not
less, as you implied in your post. You do the math
Mike you must enjoy being wrong all the time.
"General Motors has been consistently losing market share since the early
1970s. While nearly one in every two domestic vehicle sales used to fall
under the GM umbrella, the company's share now hovers around 27 percent
(including fleet sales), with substantial erosion occurring in the last five
What is your point, clearly you are mistaken once again.
What you were implying when you said in your original post "Seems
to me when highly paid GM management manages to go from 50%
market share to 28% market share in a couple of decades, there is
something wrong with the executive compensation system." GM is
selling MORE vehicles not fewer. The fact they are doing so
against vastly superior numbers of manufactures with whom they
must compete today, disputes you mistaken opinion. Obviously you
haven't done the math. The fact is, even though GM's market
share has dropped to 28% of the market compared to 50% of the
smaller market at one time, that the executives of GM
are in fact apparently earning whatever remuneration they
Declining market share suggests an overall erosion of competitiveness. It's
not great performance to have a relatively small increase in numbers when
the market has grown hugely.
If GM were still so great they'd have a much higher market share.
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
If they were making the cars domestic consumers really wanted they would
still have over 50% of the domestic market. GM management sucks. Period.
I don't care how many cars they make. They can't sell most of them without
I see you can't bring yourself to admit when you are wrong,
easier to just try to change the subject. The
fact is you are still wrong. Toyota and Honda build good cars as
well and they too offer rebates. They too are loosing share to
other some newer manufactures as well. The fact remains every
manufacture is selling more cars
in an ever expanding US market. ;)
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:52:45 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
Interesting question for the group. Since the 1950's when Mercedes
copied the US car designs have any other marque's or markets copied US
I love the Caddy SedanDeVille DTS & DHS but the styling???? Who the
hell was in charge of that fiasco???
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:58:22 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling"
dropped before it reached the Cadillac wing proportions. See the link
This site has a better picture selectoin
This was just a quick google search. I'm sure that there's better
site's out there. This is just what I was talking about.
second picture from the bottom second last (W110 fin-tail)
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.