Sure, works for me.
Why couldn't GM invest heavily in R&D? They had to pay union extortion.
Lol you can blame the unions for anything I see. Again why did GM have to pay this "extortion"? Because of the management. It agreed to the terms after all.... often without much negotiation.
The US Constitution doesn't allow the US government to design cars, that includes setting CAFE standards.
Therefore the issue is one of government interference, not one of corporate control of Congress.
Great excuse! That is why GM spent hundreds of millions of dollars over many years in blocking any attempts to get uniformed fuel efficiency standards in the US or even any standard at all in any state..only California managed to get one passed last I looked. Lets see.. which countries were better off with 150 dollars oil... those that have mandatory rules that cars have to achieve 32+ mpg or those that dont? Or do you really like going to the gas station every other day because your car only gets 12 mpg and spending a fortune each time?
Oil ran out?
When did that happen? Last time I checked, the United States has 2,300 billion barrels of oil in reserve.
Where did I say it had run out? I said it would run out and it will. Prices will go up and up and GM have been in denial of this for decades since it has fought against any form of innovation on fuel standards over to alternative fuelled cars. Numbers dont like. GM, Ford, Chrysler saw their car sales drop off a cliff when the gas was high, because they did not have fuel efficient cars to sell.
Yes, it's the unions fault for electing socialist congressthings that the US government has steadfastly refused to tap those reserves.
HAHAHAH, how thick do you think we are? Congress being in the hands of the unions? HELLLO.. your lot had control of congress for a decade and for 6 years you had TOTAL control of the US government and you are saying that the Republican party is a bunch of union people? So why did you guys not do anything about it during your total power period?
Yes. First off, the cost of car ownership is dominated by initial purchase price, which is driven by labor costs.
And those labour costs are driven up by spineless management that does not know how to say no. It is the union's job to get as much as possible for its membership so at least they were doing their freaking jobs, unlike the GM management.
Secondly, as pointed out, it's the unions that elect the socialist congressthings that have kept the oil underground. And with those two items, the last becomes irrelevant.
As I said, Republicans controlled congress from 1996 to 2006, and the whole government from 2000 to 2006, so again.. are they all socialists? Does this mean Newt was a commie?
GM made damn good trucks. I still like my 350-V8 3500 series van from 1990.
I see. Since when are trucks a car? I am fully aware that American's love big cars, even though they dont need them, but come on.. it is time to grow up America. And dont come with the lame excuse I constantly hear about "long distances" between work and home..
So it is the Unions fault that the GM management caved time and time in labour negotiations? Wow, you live in a very twisted world. Let me guess, you also believe it is the womans fault when she is raped right?
The US has an excellent health care system. Just because it's not a smoking wreck of a socialist system doesn't mean it's wrong.
The cost and statistics dont show that. But that is another discussion for another thread.
Oh. You mean the government.
Yea in part, I give you that. It was after all the Bush administration that put in place the monopolistic laws and rules often written by the industry itself... so yea.. That first law Bush signed just happened to close off the US drug market, and make it a crime for you to buy aspirin in Canada and go over the border.. Such thing dont at all drive prices up noo... not at all. :roll:
The union was a huge part of GM's failure. Anyone denying this can't comprehend what happened.
I aint denying that the Union's demands over the years have not contributed to the fall of GM.. not at all.
What I am saying, and what you and your conservative jackboots are not, is that the GM management is at just as much fault if not more.
While there is no doubt that the labour costs of GM are a big part of the problem, it cant be the fault of the unions who's only job is to get as much for its members as possible. They did their job, and it was in fact the GM management that caved in. Now one can say that it is the unions fault in a way that they did not earlier retract said benefits to save GM earlier, but again why should they when everyone could see that the GM management's business plans were bonehead and a failure? Would only have prolonged the long and painful death of GM.
It is funny that NO one has mentioned how GM management has kept failing car manufactures in the US and around the world in business for decades... They bought SAAB, a company that has had only one profitable year during the last 30 years, and let me guess, that is the unions fault also?
The Unions have nothing to do with the strategic and tactical business decisions done by the GM management that have contributed to the fall of GM. Is it the unions fault that Pontiac aint selling enough cars to make a profit? That Hummer is a dud? That SAAB was a loss making company when it was bought? That the only real profitable part of GM for a considerable number of years was Opel... in "socialist Europe"?
Sorry but giving the GM management a total get out of jail free card and placing most of the blame on the unions is nothing but partisan bs and has nothing to do with reality.