- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
To possibly make more money.
This is different that it being -necessary for the survival of the company or -the economic recover of the nation-.
The word you need to look at is "necessary".So when a company is losing money, and is very close to bankrupcty,( or in bankrupcty) cutting costs to make more money is not vital to the survival of the company?
GM's initial plan submitted to the government in February 2009 called for the gradual reduction of 1,650 of its 5,750 dealers by the end of 2014. Chrysler pointed to plans to trim its network from 3,181 dealers to about 2,000 dealers by 2014.
After Treasury rejected those earlier plans, the two companies released accelerated efforts to cut their dealership ranks. Chrysler said it would quickly close 789 dealers by June 2009 and GM said it would slash its dealer ranks by 1,454 by October 2010.
The word you need to look at is "necessary".
It has a specific and important meaning, one you seem to be missing.
Again, you fail to comprehend the conditions inherent to the use of the term 'necessary'.you are missing the idea of profit and how GM needs to make one in order to stay operating. If cutting some dealerships will help GM make money then it was needed
Again, you fail to comprehend the implications inherent to the use of the term 'necessary'.
Cutting the dealerships was only -necessary- if failing to do so would have resulted in the demise of the company and the failure of the economic recovery.
You have absolutely NO hope of demonstrating any such thing.
So you -do- agree with that part of the conclusiomEconomic recovery no of course not...
Show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.but the company yes
So you -do- agree with that part of the conclusiom
Show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.
What makes you think it was unintended?The law of unintended consequences strikes again!
So you agree that cutting the dealerships was not NECESSARY, or, as the article states, not shown to be NECESSARY.Could GM not have made cuts in one area (like dealership or its line workers) and still survive[?] Probably...
What makes you think it was unintended?
So you agree that cutting the dealerships was not NECESSARY, or, as the article states, not shown to be NECESSARY.
And thus, you agree with the two main conclusions of the article.
Lesse..Lets see is this the meme
" The Obama admin wanted the dealerships closed because most of them were owned by Republican supporters"
Did I get that right
Show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.No the cuts were needed... GM could have survived for a short period of time without making the cuts, but not over the long term
Show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.
Lesse..
Closing businesses = higher unemployment
Higher unemployment =
-more people dependant on the government - Good for The Obama
-better case for a 'crisis' = easier to implement policy that expands government - Good for The Obama
+ eventual recovery = more people giving credit for their better economic state - Good for The Obama.
So, its not hard to see how the consequences might not have been so unintended.
Lesse..
Closing businesses = higher unemployment
Higher unemployment =
-more people dependant on the government - Good for The Obama
-better case for a 'crisis' = easier to implement policy that expands government - Good for The Obama
+ eventual recovery = more people giving credit for their better economic state - Good for The Obama.
So, its not hard to see how the consequences might not have been so unintended.
Bszzzzt. Nice try.Show that they wouldnt
You're thnking on too small a scale.High unemployement generally reflects poorly on the president, usually resulting in election loses. Bad for Obama
See above.High government deficits, reflect badly on the president, bad for Obama.
And lose the long-term political committment of the unions to the Democratic party?Overall if Obama wanted high unemployement he could have let GM and Chrysler go under as many wanted.
Bszzzzt. Nice try.
YOU are arguing that your legitimate criticism of the conclusion is that GM wanted to close the dealerships anyway. Thus, the onus, given the claims in question, for providing support lies with you.
YOU argue that the closings were indeed NECESSARY to keep GM alive. It is up to YOU to show this to be true - it is up to YOU to show that GM would, with absolute certainty, have failed if the dealerships were not closed -- that there was NO other possible outcome, should the dealerships remain open.
Its clear that you cannot show any such thing - and thus, your question of the conclusions presented falls short.
...which then results of you running away, knowing you dont have anything of value to add.onh my. i guess that's all i need to see.
YOU are arguing that your legitimate criticism of the conclusion is that GM wanted to close the dealerships anyway. YOU have to then show how this was NECESSARY for GM to survive. You originally admitted that you could show no such thing, and then reversed yourself.I have argued that GM wanted to close the dealerships for business reasons, that the government followed through with that. That is all I need to do. It was not a government plot, but a rational business decision to help make GM a more viable operation, rather then some who feel the government should be in the business of subsidizing car dealerships
The democrats are likely to lose a lot of seats in the up coming midterms, possibly losing control of both Congress and Senate, hard to get anything done in such cases for long term gainsYou're thnking on too small a scale.
The Obama and His ilk are more than willing to accept short term setbacks for long term gain.
I think that goes both ways does it not Republicans only care when it is a democratic deficit, democrats when it is a republican oneSee above.
Add to that the fact that the only time The Obama's people care about deficits are when a Republican is in office, as evidenced by the vast multitude of excuses they offer for same.
And lose the long-term political committment of the unions to the Democratic party?
Not a chance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?