Who voted for Bush/Cheney in '00 or '04?

[Cono Este]

No, they don't actually do a better job, they do the same job, just far far cheaper.

Does that make the product cheaper/do the answer the phones better/do they make a better product/do they do a better job AT ALL? No. Does it make the corporate whores richer? Yes.

Bottom line.
And thats how it works.

You're fucking foolish and should stick with trying to sell shitty cars to stupid people.

No it just means Toyota does not have 150 billion in debt and an underfunded pension fund like Ford.

Oh, and last i checked owning millions of shares of Ford stock was not treating those "corporate whores" to well lately.

[Buster Highmen]

It's because they, non nationals, do the same job for less. if you have a problem with someone's ability to do your job for less, you better figure out a way to either do a better job or find another one that you are better at.

Some people make a lifetime investment in some skill or technology. I guess I'm just not so willing to throw away skilled people who may actually do a better job or make a better product in lieu of hiring a cheaper labor source, independent of nationality. Then there is the issue of nationality. I'd like America to continue to be a leader in intellectual pursuits. But gutting the National Science Foundation and devaluing intellectual activity is probably not the way to do it.

and I'm not just talking about what illegals in this country are willing to do. I'm talking about what some call center in India can do. or a silicon chip mfg. in china. or a programmer in malaysia. maybe a screed against corporate greed that's been around since the NYSE was founded will change it?

I think we have different evaluations regarding greed as a laudable motivator.
Or upholding the NYSE.

as far as the Ford situation. we'd all love to hear your take on it Buster. maybe rather that offhandedly saying something is a shallow analysis, you'd like to rebut something?

What's the point? I think your lack of ability to discourse is evident to everyone. If people want to dig into the situation, they can, hopefully in the name of query instead of supporting an agenda to which they're already welded.
For example, here's the Bill Ford's address to the National Press Club.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...22/148983.html

And a couple of excerpts:
>>>>

The fact that American auto making has been a powerful engine for jobs, research, and economic development has not been lost on other nations. They see the great potential. That's why they are investing collaboratively with their domestic auto companies to expand into markets such as ours. Take Japan , for example, where the social costs of labor, such as health care and pensions, are spread across the entire population. The government there has actively helped fund advanced technologies that would offer their businesses a competitive advantage in the future. The hybrid batteries are an example of that. Nearly a decade ago, the government offered subsidies to their domestic auto suppliers to build hybrid batteries, which are one of the most expensive components of today's hybrid vehicles. That gave them a head-start. Today these batteries are in high demand and in short supply. We need to develop the capabilities to build these batteries here in the US -- or we will find ourselves increasingly hostage to foreign components.
...
There are some who shrug their shoulders at all this. They say American manufacturing is yesterday's news and that we should rely squarely on the service sector. They say it's okay to be a consumer society and to leave the production to other parts of the world. They say that the only thing that matters is that we get our goods as cheaply as possible – that we shouldn't worry about the collateral damage.

Well, I'm not convinced.

I believe that with the right investments, America – and the American manufacturing sector – can win. It can maintain its leadership stature in the world. And we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. All at the same time. But we can't get there alone.

....

Third, converting facilities is only part of the equation. We also need to invest in the American workers who build the products with training programs and incentives to upgrade worker skills. That will help us move into the future while preserving American jobs.




<<<<

or is Yoda just asking questions today?

if we wanted a moderator we'd ask frozen to hire one.

Personally, I value questions far more greatly than vitriolic hysteria. And independent of further shallow and obvious jibes, there's no moderator, only some guy who can point out the obvious.

[Free Range Lobster]

No it just means Toyota does not have 150 billion in debt and an underfunded pension fund like Ford.

Oh, and last i checked owning millions of shares of Ford stock was not treating those "corporate whores" to well lately.

Nope, the shares aren't helping but the million dollar bonuses they give themselves despite being massively in debt certainly aren't hurting them.

When things are looking sad, just give yourself a couple million bonus for doing a good job talking today! Hooray!

[Buster Highmen]

You're fucking foolish and should stick with trying to sell shitty cars to stupid people.

Please don't lower yourself to his level.

[Cono Este]

if you can't compete with your pricing or the service you provide you should probably looking for the next product or service you can provide to maintian your existence.

I think this is a fact of life for everything and everybody. The computer has put more Americans out of work than any Indian or Chinese person. We have all had to retrain and move on to other jobs before. Oh, but these guys have Unions.

My wifes family is from Gary Indianna. Her father and his entire family worked in the steel mill's for generations. He and the entire town of Gary Indiana will be the first to tell you how Unions runied the American Steel industry.

There was a time for Unions, but for the most part many of those that remain are useless organizations that siphon money from the very people they claim to protect.

[Kya]

If teachers got paid a competitive salary to some middle managment schmuck filing TPS reports there would be more quality teachers. As it is we're lucky enough to have as many altruistic believers in Education who are willing to work for less pay. I honestly believe our Teachers' Salaries are a National shame. A HS teacher in Germany is respected professionally and paid commensurately. I bet you we'd get better teachers (or at the least be able to draw from a larger pool of applicants, which would have the same results) if we paid better wages.

Thank you, and those like you KYA. If it was up to me you guys would get merit-based salaries w/raises every year. I think our primary education teachers are some of the most important people we have in our society. Shit - you want a person who couldn't cut it in the "real" world teaching your kid, or someone who opted to use their talents to educate without needing to worry about paying the mortgage?

I see lots and lots of deep powder in your future

[cloudpeak]

guilty.

that's just a lowly used vehicle salesman talking.

Did he just say that his economic credentials consist of being a used car salesman? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Cono Este]

Nope, the shares aren't helping but the million dollar bonuses they give themselves despite being massively in debt certainly aren't hurting them.

When things are looking sad, just give yourself a couple million bonus for doing a good job talking today! Hooray!

Actually Bill Ford recieves no salary.

And even a couple of millions dollars in salary would not make a diff. in a company 150 billion in debt. Safe to say that would not be the only problem over there. Don't you think?

Just like the Steel industry, the American auto industry will die at the hands of the unions, while more nimble companies like Toyota will continue to prosper without Union contraints. And in the end the people at Toyota will still have jobs, while the Ford employee's are left high and dry by the Unions.

[grrrr]

Did he just say that his economic credentials consist of being a used car salesman? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yes there is.

[Free Range Lobster]

Cono: I guess this shows Bill is REALLY hurtin for cash huh?

No Cash Salary or Bonus for Bill Ford
Apr 7, 2006 11:57 a.m.
Thiel College

DEARBORN, Mich. -- William Clay Ford Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Ford Motor Co., received no cash salary or bonus for 2005, according to the company's 2006 proxy statement filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The value of Ford's 2005 compensation totaled $13,298,279.

In lieu of a cash salary for the first quarter of 2005, Ford received a restricted common stock grant of 32,837 shares with a one year restriction period valued at $372,043, continuing his practice of tying his compensation to the long-term performance of the company.

This year, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors decided to provide additional information regarding executive compensation in the spirit of proposed SEC rule changes. The proxy now includes a table summary of the dollar values of the total annual compensation provided, granted to, or received by each of the named executives during 2005, 2004 and 2003.

Amounts shown associated with stock awards reflect the fair market value of the common stock on the date of the grant, and amounts shown associated with option awards reflect the Black-Scholes value of the option grants on the date of the grant, officials emphasized. Whether exercising stock options is profitable depends on the relationship between the company's common stock's market price and the option's exercise price, as well as on the grantee's investment decisions.

Compensation of Ford executives for 2005 generally consisted of salary and stock-based awards. No bonuses were paid for 2005 under the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan.

Compensation details found in the 2006 proxy statement include:

In addition to the above restricted common stock grant, Bill Ford was granted 1,685,393 stock options under the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan with a Black-Scholes value on the date of grant of $7,499,999. On May 11, 2005, Ford committed to forego any new compensation, including salary, bonus or other awards, until the company's Automotive Sector achieves sustainable profitability. As a result, he did not receive any form of salary for his services as CEO for the second, third or fourth quarter of 2005.

Ford received a performance-based incentive program award of 632,587 Restricted Stock Equivalents with a value of $4,959,482 on the date of grant, for 2005 performance under the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as his eligibility for the award was established prior to the May 2005 commitment to forgo new compensation. For the third year, Ford has committed to donate shares representing his performance award to charities of his choice on the date the restrictions lapse in 2007. He also received other compensation totaling $466,755, which included $297,201 in value for required use of the corporate aircraft.

Jim Padilla, president and chief operating officer, earned $1,458,333 in salary, and the value of his 2005 compensation totaled $6,752,248. Recently, Padilla announced his retirement from the company effective July 1.

Padilla received stock and stock equivalent awards totaling $1,986,781, which included a performance-based incentive program award of 236,166 Restricted Stock Equivalents with a value of $1,851,541 for 2005 performance and a long-term incentive payout of common stock with a value of $135,240 for the 2003-2005 performance period. In addition, he received 629,213 stock options under the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan with a Black-Scholes value on the date of grant of $2,799,998. Other compensation totaled $507,136, which included $204,672 in value for required use of the corporate aircraft and $21,250 in SSIP matching contributions and related credits.

Mark Fields, executive vice president and president, The Americas, earned $972,500 in salary. The value of his 2005 compensation totaled $3,209,832. He received stock and stock equivalent awards totaling $215,470, which included a performance-based incentive program award of 20,583 Restricted Stock Equivalents with a value of $161,374 for 2005 performance and a long-term incentive payout of common stock valued at $54,096 for the 2003- 2005 performance period. In addition, he received 87,500 stock options under the 1998 Long Term Incentive Plan with a Black-Scholes value on the date of grant of $389,375. Other compensation totaled $1,632,487, which included a $1 million cash retention payment, $214,479 in value for personal use of the company aircraft, and $13,200 in SSIP matching contributions and related credits.

Don Leclair, executive vice president and chief financial officer, earned $916,667 in salary. The value of his 2005 compensation totaled $1,580,122. Leclair received stock and stock equivalent awards totaling $186,619, which included a performance-based incentive program award of 20,583 Restricted Stock Equivalents with a value of $161,374 for 2005 performance and a long-term incentive payout of common stock with a value of $25,245 for the 2003-2005 performance period. In addition, he received 87,500 stock options under the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan with a Black-Scholes value on the date of grant of $389,375. Other compensation totaled $87,461, which included $13,500 in SSIP matching contributions and related credits.

Greg Smith, former vice chairman, earned $880,000 in salary. The value of his 2005 compensation totaled $1,596,949. he received stock and stock equivalent awards totaling $215,470, which included a performance-based incentive program award of 20,583 Restricted Stock Equivalents with a value of $161,374 for 2005 performance and a long-term incentive payout of common stock with a value of $54,096 for the 2003-2005 performance period. In addition, Smith received 87,500 stock options under the 1998 Long Term Incentive Plan with a Black-Scholes value on the date of grant of $389,375. Other compensation totaled $112,104, which included $13,200 in SSIP matching contributions and related credits.

In addition, company officials announced that Padilla, Carl E. Reichardt, 74, a board member since 1986, and Marie-Josee Kravis, 56, a board member since 1995, have decided to not stand for re-election at the company's Annual Meeting of Shareholders on May 11. Accordingly, directors are expected to reduce the number of directors from 15 to 12 at the meeting.

Ford Motor Co. manufactures and distributes automobiles in 200 markets across six continents and employs about 300,000.

[Buster Highmen]

Actually Bill Ford recieves no salary.

And even a couple of millions dollars in salary would not make a diff. in a company 150 billion in debt. Safe to say that would not be the only problem over there. Don't you think?

Just like the Steel industry, the American auto industry will die at the hands of the unions, while more nimble companies like Toyota will continue to prosper without Union contraints. And in the end the people at Toyota will still have jobs, while the Ford employee's are left high and dry by the Unions.

I'm not sure I buy that argument, but the imported laborforce situation is independent of unions.

The weird thing about all this innuendo regarding Toyota and foreign auto makers success is that they are subsidized massively by their governments. Yet this is a major no-no in most Free Market philosophies whose constituents point to the success of Toyota.

[PNWbrit]

Strange how large parts of the european auto industry seem to be doing such a better job of running their business than the US giants do. Despite their having to do business over in the socialist/unionised/nanny state dreamland of Europe?

Can anyone explain to me why GM's obviously incompetent CEO still has a job after working there as a senior exec since I think 1982? Has it been reward for helping to drag the company to it's current position? Seems like better job security than any union worker I've ever heard of. Plus I bet he gets paid better than any union worker regardless of what the stock price does and presume he has a pretty good retirement package as well?

[Buster Highmen]

Another interesting take on this car stuff:
There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

But there are other reports, some coming from state officials, that confirm his basic point: Japanese auto companies opening plants in the Southern U.S. have been unfavorably surprised by the work force's poor level of training.

There's some bitter irony here for Alabama's governor. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected his plea for an increase in the state's rock-bottom taxes on the affluent, so that he could afford to improve the state's low-quality education system. Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs.

But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.

You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.

To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.

So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.

But U.S. taxpayers will suffer, because the general public ends up picking up much of the cost of health care for workers who don't get insurance through their jobs. Some uninsured workers and their families end up on Medicaid. Others end up depending on emergency rooms, which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Funny, isn't it? Pundits tell us that the welfare state is doomed by globalization, that programs like national health insurance have become unsustainable. But Canada's universal health insurance system is handling international competition just fine. It's our own system, which penalizes companies that treat their workers well, that's in trouble.

I'm sure that some readers will respond to everything I've just said by asking why, if the Canadians are so smart, they aren't richer. But I'll have to leave the issue of America's comparative economic performance for another day.

For now, let me just point out that treating people decently is sometimes a competitive advantage. In America, basic health insurance is a privilege; in Canada, it's a right. And in the auto industry, at least, the good jobs are heading north.

[mr_gyptian]

Some people make a lifetime investment in some skill or technology. I guess I'm just not so willing to throw away skilled people who may actually do a better job or make a better product in lieu of hiring a cheaper labor source, independent of nationality. Then there is the issue of nationality. I'd like America to continue to be a leader in intellectual pursuits. But gutting the National Science Foundation and devaluing intellectual activity is probably not the way to do it.

I think we have different evaluations regarding greed as a laudable motivator.
Or upholding the NYSE.

What's the point? I think your lack of ability to discourse is evident to everyone. If people want to dig into the situation, they can, hopefully in the name of query instead of supporting an agenda to which they're already welded.
For example, here's the Bill Ford's address to the National Press Club.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...22/148983.html

And a couple of excerpts:
>>>>

The fact that American auto making has been a powerful engine for jobs, research, and economic development has not been lost on other nations. They see the great potential. That's why they are investing collaboratively with their domestic auto companies to expand into markets such as ours. Take Japan , for example, where the social costs of labor, such as health care and pensions, are spread across the entire population. The government there has actively helped fund advanced technologies that would offer their businesses a competitive advantage in the future. The hybrid batteries are an example of that. Nearly a decade ago, the government offered subsidies to their domestic auto suppliers to build hybrid batteries, which are one of the most expensive components of today's hybrid vehicles. That gave them a head-start. Today these batteries are in high demand and in short supply. We need to develop the capabilities to build these batteries here in the US -- or we will find ourselves increasingly hostage to foreign components.
...
There are some who shrug their shoulders at all this. They say American manufacturing is yesterday's news and that we should rely squarely on the service sector. They say it's okay to be a consumer society and to leave the production to other parts of the world. They say that the only thing that matters is that we get our goods as cheaply as possible – that we shouldn't worry about the collateral damage.

Well, I'm not convinced.

I believe that with the right investments, America – and the American manufacturing sector – can win. It can maintain its leadership stature in the world. And we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. All at the same time. But we can't get there alone.

....

Third, converting facilities is only part of the equation. We also need to invest in the American workers who build the products with training programs and incentives to upgrade worker skills. That will help us move into the future while preserving American jobs.




<<<<


Personally, I value questions far more greatly than vitriolic hysteria. And independent of further shallow and obvious jibes, there's no moderator, only some guy who can point out the obvious.

Words of a desperate man, Bill Ford not you. Why should we nationalize healthcare just to alleviate poor managers like Bill Ford and Rick Waggoner's responsibility of making tough decisions? Ask the Toyota and Subie drivers how much they care to pay for the healthcare of Ford and GM's employees so they can build cheaper Fords and GMs. What you say? the prices won't drop? no shit. how about we double tax people and they pay for the healthcare/legacy costs all the while not getting a price break. Bill Ford is just another silver spooned idiot that hasn't made a tough decision in his life. finally he's having to.

Am I the only one that finds it weird that companies like Nissan, BMW, Honda, and Toyota can have profitable/productive American factories? you know what is unique to those factories compared to Ford and GM? they tell the UAW to pound sand. all the while they pay a fair wage. well, more than fair they average around $22/hr + healthcare benefits(not full benefits, mind you). This is also a nice insourcing story you don't hear anyone talking about. can't anger the unions...

but we already have the widest array of technical/vocational schools available at more than affordable prices. this doesn't include the US Military. it is easier than ever to get into a four year college. maybe too easy.

Michael Barone wrote a great book a couple of years ago, Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation's Future. the salient point of the book was how soft and uncompetetive America's 18 year olds are and then on the flip side how competitive and superior America's 30 year olds are when compared to the rest of the world. the reason is obvious. an obvious compliment to the free market. if you stunt that via subsidies like healthcare or guaranteed jobs. well, you have France. no thanks.

[Cono Este]

[QUOTE=likwid]Cono: I guess this shows Bill is REALLY hurtin for cash huh?


Amounts shown associated with stock awards reflect the fair market value of the common stock on the date of the grant, and amounts shown associated with option awards reflect the Black-Scholes value of the option grants on the date of the grant, officials emphasized. Whether exercising stock options is profitable depends on the relationship between the company's common stock's market price and the option's exercise price, as well as on the grantee's investment decisions.



Considering he has been locked out from selling, and F stock has dropped 40% in the last yr, the options are most likey have no intrinsic value left. Perhaps the Black-Sholes model gives them some value based on time to expiration, but essentially the 7.5 million in options are now worthless. And consiidering they needed the black-shcoles model to begin with, suggests to me that the exercise price of those options was even higher than the stock price at the time they were issued. And the stock grant has lost 40%. I would say the value of that package is now worth .25 cents on the dollar. He has yet to even see a dollar of that, but the Unions get their dues on every paycheck, right? I would say Bill Ford has had no impact on F cashflow so far, it is all incentives. If I gave you a similiar pay package you would have been living off of your savings or incurring debt to pay your bills.

I think in a situation like this, the UAW should be making concessions and accepting incentives as Bill has. At least they will have a chance to survive that way.

Bill Ford does not need the money. He could be doing Heli Runs with lap dances waiting for him in the lodge for the rest of his life. Im sure he would prefer not to be tangliing with Unions but the company in distress happens to bear his name.

[PNWbrit]

Ask the Toyota and Subie drivers

Judging from the bumper stickers the average Subaru owner would welcome a universal healthcare plan. Just shows you how smart the average Subaru owner is and perhaps reminds you how dumb GM was to sell Subaru to Toyota but still insist on trying to sell Pontiacs, Buicks and Chevrolets?

[Cono Este]

I'm not sure I buy that argument, but the imported laborforce situation is independent of unions.

The weird thing about all this innuendo regarding Toyota and foreign auto makers success is that they are subsidized massively by their governments. Yet this is a major no-no in most Free Market philosophies whose constituents point to the success of Toyota.

I am not sure about Toyota, i know the Chinese subsidize business. If not with Cheap loans, with artificial exchange rates, as much as 30% based on what analyst's believe the Yuan is really worth.

But you could make the same arguement about our transportation industry. The airlines, amtrak, etc.. How many times have we bailed them out?

[Buster Highmen]

Words of a desperate man, Bill Ford not you. Why should we nationalize healthcare just to alleviate poor managers like Bill Ford and Rick Waggoner's responsibility of making tough decisions? Ask the Toyota and Subie drivers how much they care to pay for the healthcare of Ford and GM's employees so they can build cheaper Fords and GMs. What you say? the prices won't drop? no shit. how about we double tax people and they pay for the healthcare/legacy costs all the while not getting a price break. Bill Ford is just another silver spooned idiot that hasn't made a tough decision in his life. finally he's having to.

Again, calling people idiots and your emotive, torqued out rant doesn't really help convince anyone of anything. Other than you're one uptight d00d with some weird ax to grind.

Part of the issue is that the Japanese automakers are subsidized by their government, which impacts their profitability on US soil. You've also overlooked the article where Toyota is building new plants in Canada because of the health and social programs available there, to say nothing of having literate potential employees.

We have a problem in making America a good place to live. I just don't see how undermining the labor pool, underfunding education and trying to set up a "Free Market" economy when the competing nations that house Airbus and the other automakers are running a socialist economy.

Am I the only one that finds it weird that companies like Nissan, BMW, Honda, and Toyota can have profitable/productive American factories? you know what is unique to those factories compared to Ford and GM? they tell the UAW to pound sand. all the while they pay a fair wage. well, more than fair they average around $22/hr + healthcare benefits(not full benefits, mind you). This is also a nice insourcing story you don't hear anyone talking about. can't anger the unions...

First, without the unions around, do you really think these other automakers would be offering the benefits they do?

Second, again, part of the reason these other car makers are profitable is because they have their governments backing them financially. That and their management and engineering is better.

but we already have the widest array of technical/vocational schools available at more than affordable prices. this doesn't include the US Military. it is easier than ever to get into a four year college. maybe too easy.

Michael Barone wrote a great book a couple of years ago, Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation's Future. the salient point of the book was how soft and uncompetetive America's 18 year olds are and then on the flip side how competitive and superior America's 30 year olds are when compared to the rest of the world. the reason is obvious. an obvious compliment to the free market. if you stunt that via subsidies like healthcare or guaranteed jobs. well, you have France. no thanks.

In a lot of regards, holding up the boomers and x'ers to the WWII/Korea generation is a joke. It was the WWII/K generation that built the infrastructure that we rely on today from roads through technologies like the semiconductor, infra-red and radio frequencies.
Citing Barone, another person with a major political ax to grind, is simply far too one sided again.
What kind of future is there for kids coming out of school these days? What kinds of intellectual opportunities are there? Where is the money for qualified teachers going to come from?
Blaming kids is totally lame. They're only canaries in a coal mine.

[Buster Highmen]

I am not sure about Toyota, i know the Chinese subsidize business. If not with Cheap loans, with artificial exchange rates, as much as 30% based on what analyst's believe the Yuan is really worth.

But you could make the same arguement about our transportation industry. The airlines, amtrak, etc.. How many times have we bailed them out?

The Japanese have massive governement sponsored incentives for research and manufacturing independent of health care, pensions and social services. Similarly for Airbus in Europe.

What argument regarding airlines, amtrak, etc?

The point is that while American politics waves this "Free Market" banner, the euros and Asians are burying us in the world and domestic markets with advances that our government will no longer fund like they did in the 50s and 60s.

This year Toyota will be the largest selling marque in America for the first time.

[mr_gyptian]

Again, calling people idiots and your emotive, torqued out rant doesn't really help convince anyone of anything. Other than you're one uptight d00d with some weird ax to grind.

Part of the issue is that the Japanese automakers are subsidized by their government, which impacts their profitability on US soil. You've also overlooked the article where Toyota is building new plants in Canada because of the health and social programs available there, to say nothing of having literate potential employees.

We have a problem in making America a good place to live. I just don't see how undermining the labor pool, underfunding education and trying to set up a "Free Market" economy when the competing nations that house Airbus and the other automakers are running a socialist economy.

First, without the unions around, do you really think these other automakers would be offering the benefits they do?

Second, again, part of the reason these other car makers are profitable is because they have their governments backing them financially. That and their management and engineering is better.

In a lot of regards, holding up the boomers and x'ers to the WWII/Korea generation is a joke. It was the WWII/K generation that built the infrastructure that we rely on today from roads through technologies like the semiconductor, infra-red and radio frequencies.
Citing Barone, another person with a major political ax to grind, is simply far too one sided again.
What kind of future is there for kids coming out of school these days? What kinds of intellectual opportunities are there? Where is the money for qualified teachers going to come from?
Blaming kids is totally lame. They're only canaries in a coal mine.

just like we undermined the labor force in the 80s? by letting 3 million immigrants legalize. there is simply no society no matter how you measure it that is more productive than we are. you may hate the "creative destruction" that makes it possible but without it we wouldn't have any future.

look at companies like Bayer, in the 70s they were one of the leading pharma companies in the world. now they are an aspirin mfg. and a particularly bad tasting one at that. these massive subsidies kill companies in the end. VW is stuggling just as badly as Ford. toyota will too. we operate in a business cycle that no one is immune to. right now Toyota is the smart guy on the block. Ford was in the late 90s. Alex Trotman was teflon, even Nasser was for a time. but he screwed up. it takes a special guy to make 30 bb in cash disappear. I wish Bill Ford was the right guy to fix it, but he patently isn't. it'll come to the point where they'll hire some GE or United Technologies guy to come in and make Ford work again.

and barone's book was working to explain why the Gen X generation had such an apathetic beginning only to have so many of its members realizing such success today. if that's his axe to grind, so be it.

I just don't see where this doom and gloom comes from. how resilient does our economy or society have to be to satisfy? we have a current unemployment rate of 4.7% and one of the largest public debates going on is whether 11 million people should be legalized to work in our workforce. take a look across the pond at france and the fact that 22% of people under the age of 25 are unemployed in a labor force that has been 10% unemployed for quite a few years. let them subsidize. it obviously is working out well.

we subsidize steel at the beginning of GWB's first year in office. $100 bb to prop up these aging poorly managed steel giants. now the price of steel is higher(inflation adjusted) than its ever been. its just one example.

those countries that continually subsidize their industry will crumble under it in the end. they always do.

[Buster Highmen]

just like we undermined the labor force in the 80s? by letting 3 million immigrants legalize. there is simply no society no matter how you measure it that is more productive than we are. you may hate the "creative destruction" that makes it possible but without it we wouldn't have any future.

I am continually amazed at how full of yourself you are. I mean, doesn't it strike you a just a teensy bit presumptuous to claim you compleeeeetly understand the causality for success in America and our potential for success?

look at companies like Bayer, in the 70s they were one of the leading pharma companies in the world. now they are an aspirin mfg. and a particularly bad tasting one at that. these massive subsidies kill companies in the end. VW is stuggling just as badly as Ford. toyota will too. we operate in a business cycle that no one is immune to. right now Toyota is the smart guy on the block. Ford was in the late 90s. Alex Trotman was teflon, even Nasser was for a time. but he screwed up. it takes a special guy to make 30 bb in cash disappear. I wish Bill Ford was the right guy to fix it, but he patently isn't. it'll come to the point where they'll hire some GE or United Technologies guy to come in and make Ford work again.

Usually for a problem, there's a lot of solutions and a lot of tools. But there's rarely a universal combobulatorfixitall.
How do you know that Toyota will struggle? When in the past has there ever been a situation just like there is now in world economics that allows such a succinct prediction?

and barone's book was working to explain why the Gen X generation had such an apathetic beginning only to have so many of its members realizing such success today. if that's his axe to grind, so be it.

Having read Barone, I can see why you'd gravitate to his stuff.

I just don't see where this doom and gloom comes from. how resilient does our economy or society have to be to satisfy? we have a current unemployment rate of 4.7% and one of the largest public debates going on is whether 11 million people should be legalized to work in our workforce. take a look across the pond at france and the fact that 22% of people under the age of 25 are unemployed in a labor force that has been 10% unemployed for quite a few years. let them subsidize. it obviously is working out well.

we subsidize steel at the beginning of GWB's first year in office. $100 bb to prop up these aging poorly managed steel giants. now the price of steel is higher(inflation adjusted) than its ever been. its just one example.

those countries that continually subsidize their industry will crumble under it in the end. they always do.

On the one hand we've been chatting about American car companies ability to compete. I thought it was you who brought up the doom and gloom.

I'll opt out of yet another discussion that goes nowhere. I'm just not convinced that this "Free Market" stuff is the universal panacea.

[natty dread]

April 13, 2006



Rumsfeld Faces Growing Revolt by Retired Generals
By DAVID S. CLOUD, ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, April 13 — An expanding group of influential former military officers is calling for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation in a public rebellion that has become a significant challenge to the Pentagon's civilian leadership.

The uproar is significant because for the first time the criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld is coming from some recently retired generals who were involved in planning or execution of Iraq policy.

Though their critiques differ in some respects, a common thread is that Mr. Rumsfeld's assertive style has angered many in the uniformed services as he has sought to establish more clear-cut civilian control over the Pentagon and at times involved himself in the details of war-planning more than his predecessors.

The outcry against Mr. Rumsfeld also appears to be part of a coalescing of concerns among military officers that, three years into the Iraq war, the effort is taking a mounting toll on the armed forces, with little sign that the American troops will be able to withdraw in large numbers anytime soon.

Today, Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to issue a public call for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster.

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," General Swannack said in an interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."

A second former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Mr. Rumsfeld on Wednesday. In recent weeks, Gen. Anthony C. Zinni and Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who both retired from the Marines, and Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who retired from the Army, have also spoken against Mr. Rumsfeld.

Several former generals involved said that while they were unaware of any an organized effort to bring down Mr. Rumsfeld, other officers critical of Mr. Rumsfeld were exchanging e-mail messages and telephone calls with one another, weighing the pros and cons of going public.

White House officials today voiced firm support of Mr. Rumsfeld and attributed the criticism to tensions inflamed by the debate over the war in Iraq. "The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters.

Pentagon officials, while acknowledging that Mr. Rumsfeld's forceful style has sometimes ruffled his military subordinates, played down the idea that he was overriding the advice of his military commanders or ignoring their views.

Lawrence Di Rita, a top aide to Mr. Rumsfeld, said the defense secretary's interaction with military commanders has "been frequent."

"It's been intense," he said, "but always there's been ample opportunity for military judgment to be applied against the polices of the United States."

Some retired officers, however, said they believed the momentum was turning against Mr. Rumsfeld.

"Are the flood gates opening?" one retired Army officer asked. "The tide is changing and folks are seeing the end of this administration."

No officers on active duty have joined the call for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation. In interviews, some currently serving officers expressed discomfort with the apparent campaign against Mr. Rumsfeld, which has been spearheaded by, among others, General Zinni, who headed the United States Central Command in the late 1990's.

Some of the currently serving officers said they feared the debate risked politicizing the military and undercutting its professional ethos.

Some say privately that they disagree with aspects of the Bush administration's handling of the war. But many currently serving officers, regardless of their views, say that respect for civilian control of the military requires that they air differences of opinion in private and stay silent in public.

"I support my secretary of defense," Lt. General John Vines said today when questioned about the calls for Mr. Rumsfeld to step down. "If I publicly disagree with my civilian leadership, I think I've got to resign. My advice should be private."

[mr_gyptian]

I am continually amazed at how full of yourself you are. I mean, doesn't it strike you a just a teensy bit presumptuous to claim you compleeeeetly understand the causality for success in America and our potential for success?

Usually for a problem, there's a lot of solutions and a lot of tools. But there's rarely a universal combobulatorfixitall.
How do you know that Toyota will struggle? When in the past has there ever been a situation just like there is now in world economics that allows such a succinct prediction?

Having read Barone, I can see why you'd gravitate to his stuff.

On the one hand we've been chatting about American car companies ability to compete. I thought it was you who brought up the doom and gloom.

I'll opt out of yet another discussion that goes nowhere. I'm just not convinced that this "Free Market" stuff is the universal panacea.

no, I don't pretend to completely understand anything. I don however have the utmost confidence in our citizen's ability to compete and be successful in a changing world. however they reduce that ability every time they cling to things of the past like full healthcare and defined benefit plans. Every day I see another economy becoming nimble like ours and it encourages me. it means more people trading more goods and services. the more liquid, the lower risk, the more profitable (not just $$$) for everyone involved. I hope we've tought that indian hydro engineer how to bring potable water and reliable energy to the citizens of india.

How do I know Toyota will struggle? they have no legacy costs...yet. their finance arms creat artificially high residuals on vehicles and on the other end they use the finance arm to prop up used vehicle prices. advancing 160% on a used vehicle to someone with a 650 bureau is bad math. math that makes business very expensive. just ask Ford.

having read barone I see why you don't gravitate to his stuff. he speaks of things like personal responsibility and self reliance. not only that, but has a pretty positive outlook on the future.

I'm frustrated with how Ford is operating currently, but they can't for long. this brings a smile to my face. as I've said before someone from GE will take on the challenge, someone like Mcinerney will turn Ford on its head. Hell it might be Mark Fields, he turned Mazda around. I think Ford's future is bright. someone will come in and bust the unions, properly structure the legacy costs, and they will figure out how to market vehicles not based up on rebates and APR's. will this happen right away? no. Bill Ford will have to get his ass handed to him in a big way. but his time's coming and he hasn't put enough people on his side on his board to feel very safe if the current malaise continues.

Natty, do you think any of these generals that are retired might not have retired, but got shipped by Rummy? just curious.

[splat]

"It's been intense," he said, "but always there's been ample opportunity for military judgment to be applied against the polices of the United States."

Wow, already making the case for martial law, so Bush can't be impeached?

These fuckers are scaaaary.

[PNWbrit]

How do I know Toyota will struggle? they have no legacy costs...yet. their finance arms creat artificially high residuals on vehicles and on the other end they use the finance arm to prop up used vehicle prices. advancing 160% on a used vehicle to someone with a 650 bureau is bad math. math that makes business very expensive. just ask Ford.

I was going to post something sarcastic about a used car salesman and his inside knowledge of the auto industry explaining how Toyota were doomed to failure.......you beat me to it....and it's funnier than anything I could have written.