Obama says Ford Benefited from Bail outs of Competitors.

[eagleseven]

Ford's CEO is kissing Obama's ass because he doesn't want to end up like GM's former CEO (ie fired by Obama).

How exactly would Obama "fire" the CEO of Ford? Ford took no bailout money.

Obama owns GM. GM is run by the UAW. Ford is staffed by the UAW.

1. Obama tells the UAW to strike until Ford's "Enron-esque" CEO resigns.

2. UAW strikes, bringing Ford to grinding halt, losing millions of dollars per day.

3. Ford shareholders demand that Ford CEO stands down to appease UAW.

4. UAW negotiators, assisted by federal regulators, choose a CEO more to their liking.

5. Obama lauds himself and the UAW for "Sitting down together, preventing another Enron, and changing corporate America for the better."

6. TheDoctorIsIn makes a thread praising Obama for having the courage to face down greedy corporate America and triumph.

---

Could I make it any clearer for you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ford's CEO is kissing Obama's ass because he doesn't want to end up like GM's former CEO (ie fired by Obama).

How exactly would Obama "fire" the CEO of Ford? Ford took no bailout money.

Obama owns GM. GM is run by the UAW. Ford is staffed by the UAW.

1. Obama tells the UAW to strike until Ford's "Enron-esque" CEO resigns.

2. UAW strikes, bringing Ford to grinding halt, losing millions of dollars per day.

3. Ford shareholders demand that Ford CEO stands down to appease UAW.

4. UAW negotiators, assisted by federal regulators, choose a CEO more to their liking.

5. Obama lauds himself and the UAW for "Sitting down together, preventing another Enron, and changing corporate America for the better."

6. TheDoctorIsIn makes a thread praising Obama for having the courage to face down greedy corporate America and triumph.

---

Could I make it any clearer for you?

Yeah, you keep living in fantasy land.

It sounds much more interesting than the real world.

 

[saveliberty]

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

There is no demographic difference between the percentage of Republican dealerships that were closed, and the total percentage of Republican-owned dealerships.

If you have problems reading that last paragraph, let me put it simply.

You have 100 green jelly beans, and 10 red ones. Your friend asks you for 10 jelly beans.
If you give him 9 green jelly beans and 1 red one, are you giving him a fair selection of jelly beans?

Now replace Jelly beans with car dealerships, and red with republicans.

Now do you see?

I see that you don't comprehend probability. In order to match the exact percentages you suggest, the distribution of the dealers would have to be identical in demographics beyond just party affiliation. That is not very likely in this case.

The demographic that we are discussing is Party registration. No other demographic is relevant to this conversation.

Here's a breakdown of the demographics:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: News Flash: Car Dealers are Republicans (It's Called a Control Group, People)

Wrong bucko. A surprising number of metropolitan dealerships were closed. You would suspect that demographics would say higher number of Democrats would be found there. So there is the first of many demographics that come to bear here.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I see that you don't comprehend probability. In order to match the exact percentages you suggest, the distribution of the dealers would have to be identical in demographics beyond just party affiliation. That is not very likely in this case.

The demographic that we are discussing is Party registration. No other demographic is relevant to this conversation.

Here's a breakdown of the demographics:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: News Flash: Car Dealers are Republicans (It's Called a Control Group, People)

Wrong bucko. A surprising number of metropolitan dealerships were closed. You would suspect that demographics would say higher number of Democrats would be found there. So there is the first of many demographics that come to bear here.

Did you read the link? Nate Silver's a pretty well-known statistician.

 

[eagleseven]

Yeah, you keep living in fantasy land.

It sounds much more interesting than the real world.

You wouldn't know the real world if it ran you over like a two-ton truck.

You clearly have no idea how business functions, nor how union politics work.

---

You'll be the first one praising Obama's leadership and support of American Unions against evil Ford executives. Maybe you'll even be one of the ones protesting outside of Ford HQ?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yeah, you keep living in fantasy land.

It sounds much more interesting than the real world.

You wouldn't know the real world if it ran you over like a two-ton truck.

You clearly have no idea how business functions, nor how union politics work.

---

You'll be the first one praising Obama's leadership and support of American Unions against evil Ford executives.

You have no idea what I do or do not know, nor do you have any idea what I "would" be doing in any fantasy situation.

Pretending that you do makes you look like a fool.

 

[saveliberty]

The demographic that we are discussing is Party registration. No other demographic is relevant to this conversation.

Here's a breakdown of the demographics:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: News Flash: Car Dealers are Republicans (It's Called a Control Group, People)

Wrong bucko. A surprising number of metropolitan dealerships were closed. You would suspect that demographics would say higher number of Democrats would be found there. So there is the first of many demographics that come to bear here.

Did you read the link? Nate Silver's a pretty well-known statistician.

Pretty well known liberal leaning blogger/statistician. Fail again.

Your too easy and way wrong. Got better thing to do than babysit stupid. Good news. Your free to junk up this thread all you want til morning. Then, I'll be back.

 

[eagleseven]

You'll be the first one praising Obama's leadership and support of American Unions against evil Ford executives.

You have no idea what I do or do not know, nor do you have any idea what I "would" be doing in any fantasy situation.

Pretending that you do makes you look like a fool.

I think that, with your 2,723 posts on this political forum over this past year, I would have a fair understanding of your political beliefs.

Are you anti-Union and pro-CEO? Were you angry against AIG executives last year?

Was this you?

You have no idea what I do or do not know

For starters, you've demonstrated in this thread that you know nothing about business.

 

[ConHog]

Do you not recognize that the bailout of Chrysler and GM may have helped Ford? Because, apparently the CEO of Ford thinks so. Read the whole thread, then you won't look like such a dumbass.

If GM and Chrystler went under, Ford would win some of that market share, and thus be selling more cars and making more money. With fewer companies purchasing from the same suppliers, the cost of automobile parts and raw materials would drop, increasing profit margins for the remaining manufacturers. Not to mention, Ford could likely purchase the old GM and Chrystler plants at a heavy discount during liquidation hearings, thus dramatically growing the company.

Thus, there is no way to justify Obama's insane claim...he was talking out his ass.

---

Ford's CEO is kissing Obama's ass because he doesn't want to end up like GM's former CEO (ie fired by Obama).

You are wrong on this. To use your lemonade stand analogy.

Let's suppose you and I and saved own lemonade stands, now suppose that we all buy cups from the same source, now let's suppose that if this source went out of business that no other company could meet any of our cup needs for 6 months from the time we said go, but that company doesn't have enough business to stay in business without ALL three of our accounts. Now let's suppose I'm in good shape, but you and Saved are in trouble. Now let's say I'm looking at the situation and seeing that if you and saved go out of business that my cup supplier also goes out of business and that means i don't have a supply of cups for 6 months, now how in the fuck could i possibly increase my market share if i have no cups?

Same difference here, and Mullaly , who assuredly knows more about business than you, argued the exact same thing in front of Congress.

Oh and Obama can't touch him, hell no one can touch Mulally.

 

[Charles_Main]

Do you not recognize that the bailout of Chrysler and GM may have helped Ford? Because, apparently the CEO of Ford thinks so. Read the whole thread, then you won't look like such a dumbass.

If GM and Chrystler went under, Ford would win some of that market share, and thus be selling more cars and making more money. With fewer companies purchasing from the same suppliers, the cost of automobile parts and raw materials would drop, increasing profit margins for the remaining manufacturers. Not to mention, Ford could likely purchase the old GM and Chrystler plants at a heavy discount during liquidation hearings, thus dramatically growing the company.

Thus, there is no way to justify Obama's insane claim...he was talking out his ass.

---

Ford's CEO is kissing Obama's ass because he doesn't want to end up like GM's former CEO (ie fired by Obama).

You are wrong on this. To use your lemonade stand analogy.

Let's suppose you and I and saved own lemonade stands, now suppose that we all buy cups from the same source, now let's suppose that if this source went out of business that no other company could meet any of our cup needs for 6 months from the time we said go, but that company doesn't have enough business to stay in business without ALL three of our accounts. Now let's suppose I'm in good shape, but you and Saved are in trouble. Now let's say I'm looking at the situation and seeing that if you and saved go out of business that my cup supplier also goes out of business and that means i don't have a supply of cups for 6 months, now how in the fuck could i possibly increase my market share if i have no cups?

Same difference here, and Mullaly , who assuredly knows more about business than you, argued the exact same thing in front of Congress.

Oh and Obama can't touch him, hell no one can touch Mulally.

Wow I used to think you understood Market Forces. Clearly you do not.

 

[ConHog]

If GM and Chrystler went under, Ford would win some of that market share, and thus be selling more cars and making more money. With fewer companies purchasing from the same suppliers, the cost of automobile parts and raw materials would drop, increasing profit margins for the remaining manufacturers. Not to mention, Ford could likely purchase the old GM and Chrystler plants at a heavy discount during liquidation hearings, thus dramatically growing the company.

Thus, there is no way to justify Obama's insane claim...he was talking out his ass.

---

Ford's CEO is kissing Obama's ass because he doesn't want to end up like GM's former CEO (ie fired by Obama).

You are wrong on this. To use your lemonade stand analogy.

Let's suppose you and I and saved own lemonade stands, now suppose that we all buy cups from the same source, now let's suppose that if this source went out of business that no other company could meet any of our cup needs for 6 months from the time we said go, but that company doesn't have enough business to stay in business without ALL three of our accounts. Now let's suppose I'm in good shape, but you and Saved are in trouble. Now let's say I'm looking at the situation and seeing that if you and saved go out of business that my cup supplier also goes out of business and that means i don't have a supply of cups for 6 months, now how in the fuck could i possibly increase my market share if i have no cups?

Same difference here, and Mullaly , who assuredly knows more about business than you, argued the exact same thing in front of Congress.

Oh and Obama can't touch him, hell no one can touch Mulally.

Wow I used to think you understood Market Forces. Clearly you do not.

Look, just as the fools on the left are fools for defending everything Obbama does despite evidence you are being a fool here for hating what Obama said even though you;ve been shown proof that it was true I gave you the exact words from Ford President Alan Mullaley and logically he had no reason to go to DC just to kiss ass, just face facts.

 

[eagleseven]

You are wrong on this. To use your lemonade stand analogy.

Let's suppose you and I and saved own lemonade stands, now suppose that we all buy cups from the same source, now let's suppose that if this source went out of business that no other company could meet any of our cup needs for 6 months from the time we said go, but that company doesn't have enough business to stay in business without ALL three of our accounts. Now let's suppose I'm in good shape, but you and Saved are in trouble. Now let's say I'm looking at the situation and seeing that if you and saved go out of business that my cup supplier also goes out of business and that means i don't have a supply of cups for 6 months, now how in the fuck could i possibly increase my market share if i have no cups?

Same difference here, and Mullaly , who assuredly knows more about business than you, argued the exact same thing in front of Congress.

Only someone as brilliant as Pelosi would fall for that shtick.

---

Your theory assumes that there is only one supplier of steel, rubber, plastics, and formed parts in the world. Ford is a global corporation, and there are dozens of suppliers around the world.

List of steel producers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1st 103.3 mmt ArcelorMittal Luxembourg
2nd 37.5 mmt Nippon Steel Japan
3rd 35.4 mmt Baosteel Group China
4th 34.7 mmt POSCO South Korea
5th 33.3 mmt Hebei Steel China
6th 33.0 mmt JFE Japan
7th 27.7 mmt Wuhan Steel Group China
8th 24.4 mmt Tata Steel India
9th 23.3 mmt Shagang Group Jiangsu, China
10th 23.2mmt U.S. Steel United States


Do you seriously think that the top-ten steel producing companies in the world will suddenly go out of business if GM and Chrysler went under? Seriously?

---

Only someone as brilliant as Pelosi would fall for that shtick.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How is having GM and Chrysler reorganizing their debts and pension obligations in bankruptcy like going out of business forever? How?

 

[ConHog]

You are wrong on this. To use your lemonade stand analogy.

Let's suppose you and I and saved own lemonade stands, now suppose that we all buy cups from the same source, now let's suppose that if this source went out of business that no other company could meet any of our cup needs for 6 months from the time we said go, but that company doesn't have enough business to stay in business without ALL three of our accounts. Now let's suppose I'm in good shape, but you and Saved are in trouble. Now let's say I'm looking at the situation and seeing that if you and saved go out of business that my cup supplier also goes out of business and that means i don't have a supply of cups for 6 months, now how in the fuck could i possibly increase my market share if i have no cups?

Same difference here, and Mullaly , who assuredly knows more about business than you, argued the exact same thing in front of Congress.

Only someone as brilliant as Pelosi would fall for that shtick.

---

Your theory assumes that there is only one supplier of steel, rubber, plastics, and formed parts in the world. Ford is a global corporation, and there are dozens of suppliers around the world.

List of steel producers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1st 103.3 mmt ArcelorMittal Luxembourg
2nd 37.5 mmt Nippon Steel Japan
3rd 35.4 mmt Baosteel Group China
4th 34.7 mmt POSCO South Korea
5th 33.3 mmt Hebei Steel China
6th 33.0 mmt JFE Japan
7th 27.7 mmt Wuhan Steel Group China
8th 24.4 mmt Tata Steel India
9th 23.3 mmt Shagang Group Jiangsu, China
10th 23.2mmt U.S. Steel United States


Do you seriously think that the top-ten steel producing companies in the world will suddenly go out of business if GM and Chrysler went under? Seriously?

---

Only someone as brilliant as Pelosi would fall for that shtick.

You obviosly have no concept of the way vehicles are made. Do you really think that Ford builds all of their own shocks or radios, for instance.

You're being ridiculous here, Mullally had ZERO incentive to lie. You started out asking for proof that he said it, then when I gave it to you , you claimed the proof was a lie, that is a dishonest Ravi type debate tactic, and so I will hence forth treat you like Ravi. Moron and I'm done with this thread.

 

[eagleseven]

You obviosly have no concept of the way vehicles are made. Do you really think that Ford builds all of their own shocks or radios, for instance.

Ford can buy their parts from the same companies that supply Toyota, Honda, Dongfeng, Nanjing, Hyundai, and Shaanxii.

Did you know that China manufactures over twice as many automobiles as the US per year (14 million vs. 6 million)? The American Automotive industry is now a small fish in a large Asian pond. This isn't the 1950s.

 

[ConHog]

You obviosly have no concept of the way vehicles are made. Do you really think that Ford builds all of their own shocks or radios, for instance.

Ford can buy their parts from the same companies that supply Toyota, Honda, Dongfeng, Nanjing, Hyundai, and Shaanxii.

Did you know that China manufactures over twice as many automobiles as the US per year (14 million vs. 6 million)? The American Automotive industry is now a small fish in a large Asian pond. This isn't the 1950s.

Yes, yes , yes the could, but that would take time for contracts to be met, and for those companies to ramp up THEIR production to meet the added demand from Ford, meaning a time when FOrd has no product to sale.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[eagleseven]

You obviosly have no concept of the way vehicles are made. Do you really think that Ford builds all of their own shocks or radios, for instance.

Ford can buy their parts from the same companies that supply Toyota, Honda, Dongfeng, Nanjing, Hyundai, and Shaanxii.

Did you know that China manufactures over twice as many automobiles as the US per year (14 million vs. 6 million)? The American Automotive industry is now a small fish in a large Asian pond. This isn't the 1950s.

Yes, yes , yes the could, but that would take time for contracts to be met, and for those companies to ramp up THEIR production to meet the added demand from Ford, meaning a time when FOrd has no product to sale.

I think you underestimate the efficiency of modern global shipping. Yes, there would be re-gearing costs, which would be far less (in the long run) than the cost of continual competition with GM and Chrysler.

 

[ConHog]

Ford can buy their parts from the same companies that supply Toyota, Honda, Dongfeng, Nanjing, Hyundai, and Shaanxii.

Did you know that China manufactures over twice as many automobiles as the US per year (14 million vs. 6 million)? The American Automotive industry is now a small fish in a large Asian pond. This isn't the 1950s.

Yes, yes , yes the could, but that would take time for contracts to be met, and for those companies to ramp up THEIR production to meet the added demand from Ford, meaning a time when FOrd has no product to sale.

I think you underestimate the efficiency of modern global shipping. Yes, there would be re-gearing costs, which would be far less (in the long run) than the cost of continual competition with GM and Chrysler.

In the long run, yes. But Mullaly argued that the short run would kill Ford. Do you know how much money Ford spends a day as far as wages and such go, how long could they sale NO cars and meet their obligations while waiting for other suppliers to gear up?

 

[rightwinger]

I think Ford would have benefited short term if GM and Chrysler folded

Long term I think they are better off with a strong domestic automaking infrastructure in place.

 

[chopcrazy]

No matter what, you can always count on at least one person to make an over-simplified and completely meaningless analogy when it comes to economics.

You never ran a lemonade stand, either?

It's the blind leading the blind...

Do you not recognize that the bailout of Chrysler and GM may have helped Ford? Because, apparently the CEO of Ford thinks so. Read the whole thread, then you won't look like such a dumbass.

Of course Ford benefited...when your competitor (the government) is not business savvy; you the savvy businessman benefit. Ford probably would have benefited even more if competitors went through bankruptcy.

I am suprised (may be not totally) that no one debates the ins-and-outs of bankruptcy. Have there been companies that went through bk and come out better? Is there the assumption that bk equals closing the doors for the business? If GM and Chrysler went through a "normal" bankruptcy process; what would the auto industry look like today?

As always cash is king. How will GM do long-term when it needs to borrow? Will the cost to borrow be the same for both GM and Ford in the future?