No loopier than left wing groups funded by people like George Soros and I fail to see how the Koch brothers are that bad.
When you have to LIE and hide the money you contributed…then start this so called grass roots movement that over half the people of the tea party still think is a grass roots movement. It took almost two years of investigating to find out how the Tea Party was funded. They channeled their money through several organizations.
The Koch brothers can give all the money they want to any organization they want. As I stated…I find the people of the tea party kinda stupid to still think this is a grass roots movement…and many still deny that the Koch brothers had anything to do with it.
There is a whole list of reason GM went to crap. All of them totally GM’s fault. They developed starting on the early '70s and lasting through to the current day.
While GM was busy destroying itself, Toyota was growing into the world’s largest car manufacturer, Honda developed into a serious competitor for Toyota, Ford reorganized under Alan Mulally, Hyundai grew into a serious competitor, and Subaru became the go-to car for AWD.
Up until the early '70s, GM, Ford, and Chrysler built the best cars in the world for the working class, in that order. Even as late as '76, the Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz was a thing of beauty and luxury. I would argue that they were the best cars in the world, although Rolls was more luxurious. Going onto the '70s they had the most resources, the most power, and were the “500 pound gorilla” in all aspects of purchasing, manufacturing, selling, and even financing cars. To see that all destroyed from the inside was truly tragic.
Hopefully Ms. Barra can make them great again. But she has a very, very big job ahead of her.
Hopefully Ms. Barra can make them great again. But she has a very, very big job ahead of her.
It’ll take years…if not decades…if it can be done at all. There’s a lot of opposition within the current management structure that is really hindering any change.
A big job that I suspect is being internally sabotaged. I don’t think it was coincidental that GM buried the ignition switch scandal until the first female CEO took the reigns. I suspect it was a case of “Let’s let the little woman think she’s in charge and then we’ll torpedo her career and maybe if we’re lucky the whole idea of chicks running car companies by letting her be the scapegoat.”
Unfortunately for the misogynists, Ms. Barra handled things a bit more deftly than perhaps they were expecting, but I suspect she will still face a good deal of “because she’s a girl” internal resistance to her vision.
I don’t think gender is a factor, but I wholeheartedly agree with the scale of her challenge, and the fact that the monumental obstacles are inside the company. This task is going to be analogous to trying to change the path of a meteor.
I don’t think gender is an issue either. It’s just old ideas vs newer (actually recycled) ideas.
The old garb doesn’t want to give up the bonus structure. People don’t like change. Especially if you’re well established in you career. Many people in management at GMC now were not around when was actually a car company. Barra is trying to return GM to it’s roots when GM built quality cars that people wanted and would buy over and over again.
… when GM built quality cars that people wanted and would buy over and over again.
That time is still now for me. I have bought many GM cars and each one has given me unmatched, reliability, economy, longevity, safety, and excellent value. You’re correct in saying that this has caused me to keep buying them over and over and over. I have friends and relatives in the same camp.
I’m not an “outsider” taking potshots at a particular automobile or company. I have bought (still buy), these cars for decades. I think some of the criticism is just a tad bit overdone.
That time is still now for me. I have bought many GM cars and each one has given me unmatched, reliability, economy, longevity, safety, and excellent value
And based on the decline of sales and market share - you are the minority. But glad it’s worked for you. But unfortunately I personally know dozens who had the complete opposite experience…including me.
It’s real funny that the new CEO made the statement we’re not going to build crap cars any more. HMMMM…Even she thought GM was building below average vehicles.
That misses the point. No one is arguing that Ford should be driven out of business *now*. I'm saying that if the free market drove bad-acting companies out of business, then Ford would have been driven out of business *then*. It wasn't, which tells us that relying purely on the free market to regulate safety would be foolish.
Certain people feel Ford acted reprehensibly in the Pinto affair.
Certain (other?) people continued to buy Fords, post-Pinto affair.
What you are saying is, “Because everybody didn’t see the Pinto affair exactly how I did, and subsequently bankrupt the company…then the system is broken!” That’s an awfully self-absorbed thing to be saying, IMHO. Your personal belief is the only possible correct one, and the simultaneous existence of opposing opinions is proof positive of flawed logic…
You have, continually, used words such as “murder” and “intent” W/R/T to the Pinto affair. that means that either a) you fail to understand the meanings of those words, or b) you believe the Pinto was deliberately designed from outset with flaws (for what motive?) that would kill. Negligence or sloppiness seems a LOT more likely to me: R+D was rushed to beat competitors to market, and design and quality control suffered. That’s akin to saying GM DELIBERATELY made the Vega with lousy reliability vs. just made a massive FUBAR.
PLEASE, present your evidence that the Pinto was DESIGNED, with knowledge and intent, to kill customers. I am of the opinion that there’s no need to attribute malice where stupidity explains the observed data just as well. I also feel that the Pinto affair was a bit of a hatchet job (though not nearly so much as the Corvair affair.)
You have, continually, used words such as "murder" and "intent" W/R/T to the Pinto affair. that means that either a) you fail to understand the meanings of those words, or b) you believe the Pinto was *deliberately designed* from outset with flaws (for what motive?) that would kill.
Did Ford design it that way…NO…However they knew the Pinto was not meeting the current fuel system safety requirements…and they decided that the money to fix the problem was more then the law suits would be of the subsequent deaths…so I agree they knowingly MURDERED people.
What you are saying is, “Because everybody didn’t see the Pinto affair exactly how I did, and subsequently bankrupt the company…then the system is broken!”
I’m saying that because it was widely known that Ford chose to continue producing a vehicle with a known deadly safety defect, that they knew would kill people, and yet people continued to buy Fords, yes, the free market cannot be trusted to force businesses to self-regulate.
The free-market, no gubmint interference apologists insist that if the free market were only allowed to work unfettered, companies would make good, safe, reliable products on their own due to competition. That’s delusional on a number of levels, not the least of which is that the public can be denied information it needs in order to force such self regulation on businesses.
But here’s an example where even when the public HAD the information, the public kept buying Fords. What incentive does Ford have to not produce products that kill people if the free market is the only regulatory system available and the free market fails to punish Ford for producing products that kill people?
That's an awfully self-absorbed thing to be saying, IMHO.
And you’re entirely, ludicrously wrong. It’s not self absorbed to say that claiming the free market will stop businesses from killing people is disproven by people continuing to buy products from businesses that killed people.
You have, continually, used words such as "murder" and "intent" W/R/T to the Pinto affair.
That’s right. I have. Ford designed a vehicle that they knew would kill people. They chose to produce the vehicle despite knowing that people would die as a result.
If you made a car that used nitroglycerine in the radiator, it would be pretty trivial to bring you up on murder charges when someone died driving your car. Even if you were dumb, and didn’t know that nitroglycerine is dangerous, if someone told you that nitroglycerine is dangerous and you continued to produce the vehicle because you didn’t feel like spending the money for a redesign, you would get nailed.
Ford made a car that had a number of known and avoidable features which guaranteed the car would kill people. Ford knew that. Ford made it anyway. They murdered people.
Negligence or sloppiness seems a LOT more likely to me:
I recommend you google the phrase “negligent homicide” and get back to me.
Plenty of cars had similar tank setups. NHTSA showed 27 reported immolation deaths out of 30,000,000ish sold, making this a (literal) “one in a million” occurrence. The overall fatality rate of the Pinto was inline with other small cars of the era (admittedly, small cars of that era were pretty dangerous).
The concept of “cost-benefit ratio” is a sound economic principle. If you want a desired “good” (safety, pizza, or Spongebob Squarepants bobbleheads)…and don’t have the means to buy every single one of them (i.e. scarcity), then it is imperative that you buy the cheapest units first, then the next cheapest, etc…the moronic “if it saves just ONE life…” credo only makes rational sense IFF you have the means to save every possible life from accidental death: as long as somebody still dies accidentally one the safety budget is blown, then CBR is how you save the most lives.
If Ford “murdered” via CBR, then so does the NHTSA, the FAA, and each and every safety agency that means-tests their proposed regs.
Somebody with more time on their hands could look at the aggregate loss of market cap of F (from the announcement of the problem to the verdict), combined with the verdict cost…and factor in the fact that, even today, domestic cars are often seen as “inferior” to imports due to cars such as the Pinto and Vega.
Any “monday morning QB” analysis of the Pinto affair would have to conclude Ford WAS punished over and above any savings on not fixing the problem; therefore, the sytem “worked”; HOWEVER, Ford was not punished in the exact manner and degree to which you WISHED it was, so you conclude that “the system’s broken!”
Plenty of cars had similar tank setups. NHTSA showed 27 reported immolation deaths out of 30,000,000ish sold, making this a (literal) "one in a million" occurrence. The overall fatality rate of the Pinto was inline with other small cars of the era (admittedly, small cars of that era were pretty dangerous).
That’s an illogical comparison. You’re assuming that the other deaths by other manufacturers were because the vehicle was a poor/unsafe design.
Second - there were 3 million sold…NOT 30 million.
Ford’s own tests showed that a rear-end crash over 25mph resulted in 100% failure of the gas tank and most of the time it ignited.
credo only makes rational sense IFF you have the means to save every possible life from accidental death: as long as somebody still dies accidentally one the safety budget is blown, then CBR is how you save the most lives.
There’s a HUGE difference between designing a safe/affordable vehicle…and building one that you know will kill people in a simple rear-end crash.
Any "monday morning QB" analysis of the Pinto affair would have to conclude Ford WAS punished over and above any savings on not fixing the problem; therefore, the sytem "worked";
WRONG AGAIN...Yes the jury did award the plaintiff $125million (which is more then the savings). You should have kept reading...The award was then reduced to 3.1million dollars...which was petty cash to Ford.
HOWEVER, Ford was not punished in the exact manner and degree to which you WISHED it was, so you conclude that "the system's broken!"
On a word…YES…Because even YOU have argued that OTHER companies are doing the exact same thing. If they are then what better way to stop it then to bring criminal charges and punitive damages so high that they don’t do it again.
