A Famous Detroit Native Speaks to Congress.......in our dreams

[JPSartre12]

The following article was written by Detroit native and nationally-known journalist/author, Mitch Albom


If I had the floor at the auto rescue talks

BY MITCH ALBOM • FREE PRESS COLUMNIST • November 23, 2008
OK. It's a fantasy. But if I had five minutes in front of Congress last week, here's what I would've said:



Good morning. First of all, before you ask, I flew commercial. Northwest Airlines. Had a bag of peanuts for breakfast. Of course, that's Northwest, which just merged with Delta, a merger you, our government, approved -- and one which, inevitably, will lead to big bonuses for their executives and higher costs for us. You seem to be OK with that kind of business.
Which makes me wonder why you're so against our kind of business? The kind we do in Detroit. The kind that gets your fingernails dirty. The kind where people use hammers and drills, not keystrokes. The kind where you get paid for making something, not moving money around a board and skimming a percentage.
You've already given hundreds of billions to banking and finance companies -- and hardly demanded anything. Yet you balk at the very idea of giving $25 billion to the Detroit Three. Heck, you shoveled that exact amount to Citigroup -- $25 billion -- just weeks ago, and that place is about to crumble anyhow.
Does the word "hypocrisy" ring a bell?
Protecting the home turf?

Sen. Shelby. Yes. You. From Alabama. You've been awfully vocal. You called the Detroit Three's leaders "failures." You said loans to them would be "wasted money." You said they should go bankrupt and "let the market work."
Why weren't you equally vocal when your state handed out hundreds of millions in tax breaks to Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Honda and others to open plants there? Why not "let the market work"? Or is it better for Alabama if the Detroit Three fold so that the foreign companies -- in your state -- can produce more?
Way to think of the nation first, senator.
And you, Sen. Kyl of Arizona. You told reporters: "There's no reason to throw money at a problem that's not going to get solved."
That's funny, coming from such an avid supporter of the Iraq war. You've been gung ho on that for years. So how could you just sit there when, according to the New York Times, an Iraqi former chief investigator told Congress that $13 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds "had been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft and waste" by the Iraqi government?
That's 13 billion, senator. More than half of what the auto industry is asking for. Thirteen billion? Gone? Wasted?
Where was your "throwing money at a problem that's not going to get solved" speech then?
Watching over the bankers?

And the rest of you lawmakers. The ones who insist the auto companies show you a plan before you help them. You've already handed over $150 billion of our tax money to AIG. How come you never demanded a plan from it? How come when AIG blew through its first $85 billion, you quickly gave it more? The car companies may be losing money, but they can explain it: They're paying workers too much and selling cars for too little.
AIG lost hundred of billions in credit default swaps -- which no one can explain and which make nothing, produce nothing, employ no one and are essentially bets on failure.
And you don't demand a paragraph from it?
Look. Nobody is saying the auto business is healthy. Its unions need to adjust more. Its models and dealerships need to shrink. Its top executives have to downsize their own importance.
But this is a business that has been around for more than a century. And some of its problems are because of that, because people get used to certain wages, manufacturers get used to certain business models. It's easy to point to foreign carmakers with tax breaks, no union costs and a cleaner slate -- not to mention help from their home countries -- and say "be more like them."
But if you let us die, you let our national spine collapse. America can't be a country of lawyers and financial analysts. We have to manufacture. We need that infrastructure. We need those jobs. We need that security. Have you forgotten who built equipment during the world wars?
Besides, let's be honest. When it comes to blowing budgets, being grossly inefficient and wallowing in debt, who's better than Congress?
So who are you to lecture anyone on how to run a business?
Ask fair questions. Demand accountability. But knock it off with the holier than thou crap, OK? You got us into this mess with greed, a bad Fed policy and too little regulation. Don't kick our tires to make yourselves look better.
Contact MITCH ALBOM at 313-223-4581 or malbom@freepress.com.

[Hawkyfan99]

You got us into this mess with greed, a bad Fed policy and too little regulation.

Exactly HOW the FUCK can the government be responsible for your problem with too little regulation? Give credence to the fact that we need them to protect us from ourselves? Hell. No.

[ArcticPhoenix]

Exactly HOW the FUCK can the government be responsible for your problem with too little regulation? Give credence to the fact that we need them to protect us from ourselves? Hell. No.

While I agree with you for the most part, laws do need to be in place to protect the taxpayers and consumers, AND the businesses. There has to be some kind of balance, and there has been too little regulation in certain industries. There's also been too much regulation in some industries, but I digress.

The Big Three are responsible for their own failure.

I mean Jesus Christ, look at the vehicles they've put out that have damaged them... The Chevy Vega? The Chevelle? The "X" series, back in the early 80s? The Hummer? The Aztek? How about the Saturns of the early 90s?

The Big Three's designers and engineers have been out of touch with the public for quite a while, producing sub-par vehicles at a price not worth buying them at.

I don't think the government is responsible for this in any way shape or form.

[ehartsay]

The kind where you get paid for making something, not moving money around a board and skimming a percentage.

I like this quote very much.

[Hawkyfan99]

While I agree with you for the most part, laws do need to be in place to protect the taxpayers and consumers, AND the businesses. There has to be some kind of balance, and there has been too little regulation in certain industries. There's also been too much regulation in some industries, but I digress.

The Big Three are responsible for their own failure.

I mean Jesus Christ, look at the vehicles they've put out that have damaged them... The Chevy Vega? The Chevelle? The "X" series, back in the early 80s? The Hummer? The Aztek? How about the Saturns of the early 90s?

The Big Three's designers and engineers have been out of touch with the public for quite a while, producing sub-par vehicles at a price not worth buying them at.

I don't think the government is responsible for this in any way shape or form.

The first generation Saturns did exactly what they were intended to do. The competed with the imports. Favorably, even.

The current woes can be traced back to two types of decisions. Poor product management/adaptability and unwillingness to stand up to the unions, resulting in outrageous legacy costs.

[ArcticPhoenix]

The first generation Saturns did exactly what they were intended to do. The competed with the imports. Favorably, even.

The current woes can be traced back to two types of decisions. Poor product management/adaptability and unwillingness to stand up to the unions, resulting in outrageous legacy costs.

I disagree with the bolded. Poor management and adaptability certainly have led to their downfall. However, the second type of decisions, the decision to not produce vehicles that would do well in the market, is the other type of decision that has led to their downfall. And, even then, that goes back to poor management and adaptability. This isn't the unions' faults, no matter how you try to spin it. GM was busy putting out Hummers, Azteks, Explorers, and Canyoneros when they should have shifted their focus to a more fuel efficient vehicle.

And the early Saturns were very unstable. They had lots of problems with them.

See here (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/saturn_engine.html) and here (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/12/13/8214222/index.htm),

[Hawkyfan99]

I disagree with the bolded. Poor management and adaptability certainly have led to their downfall. However, the second type of decisions, the decision to not produce vehicles that would do well in the market, is the other type of decision that has led to their downfall. And, even then, that goes back to poor management and adaptability. This isn't the unions' faults, no matter how you try to spin it. GM was busy putting out Hummers, Azteks, Explorers, and Canyoneros when they should have shifted their focus to a more fuel efficient vehicle.

And the early Saturns were very unstable. They had lots of problems with them.

See here (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/saturn_engine.html) and here (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/12/13/8214222/index.htm),

They sold lots of them. To people that wanted to buy more of them. They were reasonably successful.

And, how exactly can you disagree with the bolded? Do you know what the GENBank costs? All of those costs of free healthcare for life? Those two, alone, add huge costs to the Big 3.In 2005, the GENBank cost GM nearly 60 million dollars a MONTH. So, if you calculate out the cost of the GENBank (which is still nearly 1500 people for GM), plus the cost of healthcare, and you have thousands of dollars on every car. And thats while you can dilute the costs amongst huge pools of vehicles, such as they've done with the fleets, depleting their resale value.

[ArcticPhoenix]

And, how exactly can you disagree with the bolded? Do you know what the GENBank costs? All of those costs of free healthcare for life? Those two, alone, add huge costs to the Big 3.In 2005, the GENBank cost GM nearly 60 million dollars a MONTH. So, if you calculate out the cost of the GENBank (which is still nearly 1500 people for GM), plus the cost of healthcare, and you have thousands of dollars on every car. And thats while you can dilute the costs amongst huge pools of vehicles, such as they've done with the fleets, depleting their resale value.

They obviously didn't produce and sell enough vehicles that profited them. Had they not had the problems and recalls that they've had, that would have saved them a substantial amount of money.

It'll be interesting to see what you think of healthcare when you are retired and have some sort of insurance issued to you by the company you spent the prime of your life helping to turn a profit.

[Hawkyfan99]

They obviously didn't produce and sell enough vehicles that profited them. Had they not had the problems and recalls that they've had, that would have saved them a substantial amount of money.

It'll be interesting to see what you think of healthcare when you are retired and have some sort of insurance issued to you by the company you spent the prime of your life helping to turn a profit.

They didn't adapt. They used to have the whole pie. They don't anymore. People want decent cars that don't have to cover their ridiculous costs. Hyundais, Toyotas, etc.

Then your legacy costs are that high, you're not going to be able to protect much profit. And what they DO have, they give away in the form of incentives.even if the total cost per labor hour is $60, multiply that by 168 hours in a month, and then 1500 people, you're still talking $15.1 million dollars/month, just for gm's genbank. That's a lot of zero productivity overhead to carry per vehicle to deduct from what people are willing to pay, which is why they've had to spend so much on incentives.

And this is one of the ramifications of the retiring baby boomers. Just another example of what is broken with tying healthcare to employment. The more generations that have that contract with a company, the more likely the company will collapse under the weight of those obligations.

[ArcticPhoenix]

They didn't adapt. They used to have the whole pie. They don't anymore. People want decent cars that don't have to cover their ridiculous costs. Hyundais, Toyotas, etc.

Then your legacy costs are that high, you're not going to be able to protect much profit. And what they DO have, they give away in the form of incentives.even if the total cost per labor hour is $60, multiply that by 168 hours in a month, and then 1500 people, you're still talking $15.1 million dollars/month, just for gm's genbank. That's a lot of zero productivity overhead to carry per vehicle to deduct from what people are willing to pay, which is why they've had to spend so much on incentives.

And this is one of the ramifications of the retiring baby boomers. Just another example of what is broken with tying healthcare to employment. The more generations that have that contract with a company, the more likely the company will collapse under the weight of those obligations.

That's not zero productivity... just take their previous productivity and divide it by the amount of time they have in retirement before they die. It's kind of like earning dividends on an investment.

[Hawkyfan99]

That's not zero productivity... just take their previous productivity and divide it by the amount of time they have in retirement before they die. It's kind of like earning dividends on an investment.

It IS zero productivity. Their productivity paid the bills for those before them. I suppose that you could prefer to look at it as a another huge Ponzi scheme, but the fact is that they have huge amounts of overhead that is currently producing nothing, and brings with it costs many times that of GM's highest paid execs.

[ArcticPhoenix]

It IS zero productivity. Their productivity paid the bills for those before them. I suppose that you could prefer to look at it as a another huge Ponzi scheme, but the fact is that they have huge amounts of overhead that is currently producing nothing, and brings with it costs many times that of GM's highest paid execs.

Oh, absolutely! Because farking over your employees who worked hard for you throughout the bulk of their life always brings down large employers. It has NOTHING to do with multiple people in upper management making 90 million dollars a year, all having private jets, and making vehicles that don't compete with vehicles from other companies.

Nah, rather than doing the intelligent thing and changing the way we do business by providing vehicles that are well thought out and don't have major flaws in them causing us to recall most of our vehicles and costing us money, let's fark over our employees! How DARE them get sick when they're old?!

[Hawkyfan99]

Oh, absolutely! Because farking over your employees who worked hard for you throughout the bulk of their life always brings down large employers. It has NOTHING to do with multiple people in upper management making 90 million dollars a year, all having private jets, and making vehicles that don't compete with vehicles from other companies.

Nah, rather than doing the intelligent thing and changing the way we do business by providing vehicles that are well thought out and don't have major flaws in them causing us to recall most of our vehicles and costing us money, let's fark over our employees! How DARE them get sick when they're old?!

So, let me make sure I've got your context. Are you talking about individual people making 90 million/yr, because the
CEO makes a fraction of that. Or maybe you're talking about mgmt as a whole?

You're woefully ignorant in this post, starting with the figures that you're attributing to mgmt, and continuing to the insinuation that corporate jets are common for people within the big 3. Chrysler has NONE, and Ford and GM probably have 10 between them. For a few companies that probably have no less than 250000 employees between them, I'd say that's not exactly common.

[ArcticPhoenix]

So, let me make sure I've got your context. Are you talking about individual people making 90 million/yr, because the
CEO makes a fraction of that. Or maybe you're talking about mgmt as a whole? As a whole. And I'm assuming, of course, this includes bonuses and the like (though why you need to give a bonus to a CEO, I don't know).


You're woefully ignorant in this post, starting with the figures that you're attributing to mgmt, and continuing to the insinuation that corporate jets are common for people within the big 3. Chrysler has NONE, and Ford and GM probably have 10 between them. For a few companies that probably have no less than 250000 employees between them, I'd say that's not exactly common. It's still an UNNECESSARY expense that has nothing to do with their employees or production. Surely you can see that. They need to be cutting costs where they can. Sure, the union needs to be willing to cut some things too, but GM's financial troubles aren't the fault of the union.

[Hawkyfan99]

As a whole. And I'm assuming, of course, this includes bonuses and the like (though why you need to give a bonus to a CEO, I don't know).

It's still an UNNECESSARY expense that has nothing to do with their employees or production. Surely you can see that. They need to be cutting costs where they can. Sure, the union needs to be willing to cut some things too, but GM's financial troubles aren't the fault of the union.

Coming full circle, they revolve around a couple of bad decision categories. Poor product mgmt decisions and giving in to ridiculous union demands. The rest are penny-ante shit in comparison.

[ArcticPhoenix]

Coming full circle, they revolve around a bad decision. Poor product mgmt decisions. The rest are penny-ante shit in comparison.

FTFY!

[Hawkyfan99]

FTFY!

Nah. It was right the first time. The management issues are plentiful, including caving to the unions. It's made an already substantial problem nearly insurmountable.

Consumers think so too. Turns out, they don't want to pay for all of the overhead that comes with a GM product. You would know, as the owner of a Hyundai, no?

Surely you're cognizant that you could've bought something like a Cobalt or a Focus, gotten a reasonable car with reasonable mileage, and helped to support those that are supported by the big 3.

[ArcticPhoenix]

Consumers think so too. Turns out, they don't want to pay for all of the overhead that comes with a GM product. You would know, as the owner of a Hyundai, no? I bought my vehicle because of the warranty and because I had had WAY too many problems with a "Big Three" vehicle... well, actually two vehicles, prior to purchasing the one I bought. (A Neon and an S10)


Surely you're cognizant that you could've bought something like a Cobalt or a Focus, gotten a reasonable car with reasonable mileage, and helped to support those that are supported by the big 3.
Absolutely. But read above. And add to that that I would be supporting poor business decisions.

[Hawkyfan99]

I bought my vehicle because of the warranty and because I had had WAY too many problems with a "Big Three" vehicle... well, actually two vehicles, prior to purchasing the one I bought. (A Neon and an S10)


You had another option. I see no Ford in your list of problems. Also, did you have problems with 100% of the vehicles that you purchased? As many of us have said in the past, we've put well in excess of 100k miles on big 3 products with few issues. Did you buy the Hyundai new? Neon? S10?

The Hyundai came with the warranty it did because of the problems that they'd had with the first iterations. Recent Chryslers came with lifetime powertrain warranties.


Absolutely. But read above. And add to that that I would be supporting poor business decisions.

Hyundai hasn't been around long enough to have the same kind of history. Like you said, you bought it because of the warranty. Nothing wrong with that, but looking for one company to do one thing, and supporting someone else for a cheaper product...well...

[JPSartre12]

Sorry guys. I spent the day punching holes in paper targets, so I'm catching up via multi=posts.

While I agree with you for the most part, laws do need to be in place to protect the taxpayers and consumers, AND the businesses. There has to be some kind of balance, and there has been too little regulation in certain industries. There's also been too much regulation in some industries, but I digress.

The Big Three are responsible for their own failure.

I mean Jesus Christ, look at the vehicles they've put out that have damaged them... The Chevy Vega? The Chevelle? The "X" series, back in the early 80s? The Hummer? The Aztek? How about the Saturns of the early 90s?

The Big Three's designers and engineers have been out of touch with the public for quite a while, producing sub-par vehicles at a price not worth buying them at.

I don't think the government is responsible for this in any way shape or form.

You're so out of touch with Detroit that it's a joke. The Vega hasn't been made in over THIRTY YEARS! The last Chevelle was made in 1973, IIRC. And in the 70's Hondas, Toyotas and Datsuns were rusting out faster than American-made cars. In fact, Datsun had such a bad reputation that they changed their name to Nissan.
The Saturns of the 90's were a great success for GM. The Hummers were produced primarily for people wanting a stable towing and all-terrain vehicle. GM didn't anticipate it becoming a status symbol amongst suburbanites. But when they did, they'd have been foolish not to cultivate this new market. There are two main reason that GM put its main focus on SUVs and bigger vehicles. #1, it's what buyers wanted. #2, they could make money on them. Because of high labor and legacy costs, GM, Ford and Chrysler are at a big disadvantage in the small car marketplace. In fact, Chrysler used to LOSE money on every Neon sold. I suspect that the same held true for the Grand Am and other small GM cars.


The first generation Saturns did exactly what they were intended to do. The competed with the imports. Favorably, even.

The current woes can be traced back to two types of decisions. Poor product management/adaptability and unwillingness to stand up to the unions, resulting in outrageous legacy costs.

The biggest cause of the Big Threes woes has been the increase in number of competitors for customers. It's easier to maintain 50% market share when there are 2 competitors. It's another thing when there are 30 competitors.

I disagree with the bolded. Poor management and adaptability certainly have led to their downfall. However, the second type of decisions, the decision to not produce vehicles that would do well in the market, is the other type of decision that has led to their downfall. And, even then, that goes back to poor management and adaptability. This isn't the unions' faults, no matter how you try to spin it. GM was busy putting out Hummers, Azteks, Explorers, and Canyoneros when they should have shifted their focus to a more fuel efficient vehicle.

And the early Saturns were very unstable. They had lots of problems with them.


Bullshit! The early Saturns were lauded for their quality.
The aggregate consumer rating for the 1991 Saturn S was 8.1 out of 10. Not bad for a first year vehicle.
http://www.edmunds.com/saturn/sseries/1991/review.html

And I can use your same reference to show Honda's poor quality. For example:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/03/honda_recall.html
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/recalls04/2007/honda_civic2.html


They sold lots of them. To people that wanted to buy more of them. They were reasonably successful.

And, how exactly can you disagree with the bolded? Do you know what the GENBank costs? All of those costs of free healthcare for life? Those two, alone, add huge costs to the Big 3.In 2005, the GENBank cost GM nearly 60 million dollars a MONTH. So, if you calculate out the cost of the GENBank (which is still nearly 1500 people for GM), plus the cost of healthcare, and you have thousands of dollars on every car. And thats while you can dilute the costs amongst huge pools of vehicles, such as they've done with the fleets, depleting their resale value.
Exactly. As market size shrinks, which inevitably occurs when more competitors join the US market, the legacy cost/vehicle sold goes up even higher. Currently, it's $2-2.5k/vehicle.

They obviously didn't produce and sell enough vehicles that profited them. Had they not had the problems and recalls that they've had, that would have saved them a substantial amount of money.

It'll be interesting to see what you think of healthcare when you are retired and have some sort of insurance issued to you by the company you spent the prime of your life helping to turn a profit.

Again, you speak from ignorance of the market. If the Big Three LOSE money on small cars, they can never get out of the hole under the curent constraints. So, the Big Three have been working with the UAW to reduce their legacy costs and establish a two tier wage scale so that they can become competitive in the small car market. By getting the retirees off of GM's books after 2010, for example, GM will be able to make money on small cars and compete on a more even field with Toyota and Honda.

They didn't adapt. They used to have the whole pie. They don't anymore. People want decent cars that don't have to cover their ridiculous costs. Hyundais, Toyotas, etc.

Then your legacy costs are that high, you're not going to be able to protect much profit. And what they DO have, they give away in the form of incentives.even if the total cost per labor hour is $60, multiply that by 168 hours in a month, and then 1500 people, you're still talking $15.1 million dollars/month, just for gm's genbank. That's a lot of zero productivity overhead to carry per vehicle to deduct from what people are willing to pay, which is why they've had to spend so much on incentives.

And this is one of the ramifications of the retiring baby boomers. Just another example of what is broken with tying healthcare to employment. The more generations that have that contract with a company, the more likely the company will collapse under the weight of those obligations.

The Big Three has been working hard to reduce legacy costs by agreeing to place a large chunk of money upfront, into the new UAW benefit plan.

That's not zero productivity... just take their previous productivity and divide it by the amount of time they have in retirement before they die. It's kind of like earning dividends on an investment.

I can see why you didn't go into finance. ;)

It IS zero productivity. Their productivity paid the bills for those before them. I suppose that you could prefer to look at it as a another huge Ponzi scheme, but the fact is that they have huge amounts of overhead that is currently producing nothing, and brings with it costs many times that of GM's highest paid execs.

:agree:

[ArcticPhoenix]

You're so out of touch with Detroit that it's a joke. The Vega hasn't been made in over THIRTY YEARS! The last Chevelle was made in 1973, IIRC. And in the 70's Hondas, Toyotas and Datsuns were rusting out faster than American-made cars. In fact, Datsun had such a bad reputation that they changed their name to Nissan.
The Saturns of the 90's were a great success for GM. The Hummers were produced primarily for people wanting a stable towing and all-terrain vehicle. GM didn't anticipate it becoming a status symbol amongst suburbanites. But when they did, they'd have been foolish not to cultivate this new market. There are two main reason that GM put its main focus on SUVs and bigger vehicles. #1, it's what buyers wanted. #2, they could make money on them. Because of high labor and legacy costs, GM, Ford and Chrysler are at a big disadvantage in the small car marketplace. In fact, Chrysler used to LOSE money on every Neon sold. I suspect that the same held true for the Grand Am and other small GM cars.
Dude, you completely missed my point. My point is that The Big Three have made shiatty products for over thirty years! I merely mentioned the Vega because it was one of the first ones that started GM's slide into oblivion. Perhaps I should have picked another vehicle as an example, fair enough. But you missed my point.


I can see why you didn't go into finance. Well, thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I wouldn't want to be compared to the guys that have been in charge of the banks. They're all idiots. ;)

[Hawkyfan99]

Dude, you completely missed my point. My point is that The Big Three have made shiatty products for over thirty years! I merely mentioned the Vega because it was one of the first ones that started GM's slide into oblivion. Perhaps I should have picked another vehicle as an example, fair enough. But you missed my point.


You're wrong. They've had reasonable quality of late. But, they still battle perception. They failed to adapt, no doubt. But, you're straight up wrong if you think that they produce nothing but crap.

[JPSartre12]

Dude, you completely missed my point. My point is that The Big Three have made shiatty products for over thirty years! I merely mentioned the Vega because it was one of the first ones that started GM's slide into oblivion. Perhaps I should have picked another vehicle as an example, fair enough. But you missed my point.

What you fail to comprehend is that the Big Three's "slide" coincided with the increase in the number of imported cars. Honda, Toyota and Nissan all sold cars into the US market at next to no profit in order to buy market share. Their cars were shit, too, by today's standards, but they were cheap and people bought them. Quality wasn't what got people to buy Honda Civics, cost was.


Well, thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I wouldn't want to be compared to the guys that have been in charge of the banks. They're all idiots. ;)

I had lunch with one of those financial idiots today. He's 24 and made ~$100k last year in his first year out of college. You certainly wouldn't want to be that dumb now would you? :rolleyes2

[ArcticPhoenix]

What you fail to comprehend is that the Big Three's "slide" coincided with the increase in the number of imported cars. Honda, Toyota and Nissan all sold cars into the US market at next to no profit in order to buy market share. Their cars were shit, too, by today's standards, but they were cheap and people bought them. Quality wasn't what got people to buy Honda Civics, cost was.

Correlation != Causation!

I had lunch with one of those financial idiots today. He's 24 and made ~$100k last year in his first year out of college. You certainly wouldn't want to be that dumb now would you? I'm betting he doesn't actually do anything for the good of society, though. And making money doesn't qualify as being "for the good of society".

[Hawkyfan99]

Correlation != Causation!


He's right. It's easy to maintain market share when there are no external influences. :huh:


I'm betting he doesn't actually do anything for the good of society, though. And making money doesn't qualify as being "for the good of society".

Helping people make sure that they have enough money to support themselves in retirement seems to be a good service provided to society, no?

[JPSartre12]

Correlation != Causation!

In this case, I can demonstrate both.

I'm betting he doesn't actually do anything for the good of society, though. And making money doesn't qualify as being "for the good of society".

Actually, he raises capital to build funds that are grown and then sold. Most of his customers are large pension funds, so I'd say that what he does IS good for society. You've been guilty of painting with too broad a brush in many threads lately, AP. Might I suggest that you change to a finer bristle? ;)

[ArcticPhoenix]

In this case, I can demonstrate both. Can not.

Actually, he raises capital to build funds that are grown and then sold. Most of his customers are large pension funds, so I'd say that what he does IS good for society. You've been guilty of painting with too broad a brush in many threads lately, AP. Might I suggest that you change to a finer bristle? Not until I'm done with my masterpiece. :P

[Hawkyfan99]

Can not.


Uh. Yeah. I'm pretty sure that he can.

[ArcticPhoenix]

He's right. It's easy to maintain market share when there are no external influences. His argument seems to be that that is the cause of their loss of the market share. While it may be a contributing factor, it is not the sole reason.

[Hawkyfan99]

His argument seems to be that that is the cause of their loss of the market share. While it may be a contributing factor, it is not the sole reason.

In the absence of additional options, their market share would've continued perpetually. So, yes...it can be established as causation.

Production of a quality product would've prolonged their life longer, but yes...the addition of external forces are most certainly causation.

[aeddbc]

If the Feds don't bail out the big three, they may as well drop a nuclear bomb on Michigan.