Politics

[RDU Irish]

haha, Romney didn't care one bit if the companies Bain invested in survived. It was all about ROI, that's why Bain focused on Leveraged Buyouts all through the 90's. It was simply easier to leverage a company's assets and cashflows in order to rape their retained earnings for profit. Training management, investing in infrastructure and changing philosophies are too time consuming and short term expensive. Bain wasn't in the business of transforming business under Romney. They were in the leveraged buyout business. They were corporate sharks. Many of the companies they dealt with were not in financial jeopardy until Romney showed up, ready to pillage their retained earnings for Bain.

Some of you dudes don't know the first thing about Venture Capitalist. You can argue that you don't care about him breaking up companies because he was serving Bain's shareholders best financial interests. But let's quit with the "he helped businesses thrive" bs. He helped Bain thrive.

Is there a problem with a heartless SOB cutting costs and sticking to core services within government? The rational see this as EXACTLY what is needed. The irrational can listen to the "job creator/ successful businessman" marketing and eat it up like the mouth breathing sheep they are. If you want to talk about lesser evils, look at Obama's (lack of) track record and tell me there is any indication he can do anything productive for this country, which was exactly the case four years ago but our populace forgot we were electing a president, not voting for an American Idol.

 

[RDU Irish]

The name of the game for VPs is to not hurt the nominee. Walker A)Would drive up democratic turnout and B) Carries the risk of being indicted in the John Doe scandal. You go for someone who's clean as the driven snow with no skeletons in his closet.

The point of business isn't to help the economy out. It's to maximize shareholder value. It just so happens that the end result of what Bain did was good for everyone else. The point is, Romney learned a hell of a lot about how the economy works at Bain, and a lot about how to build and lead effective teams. This knowledge gives him a unique insight into the workings of the economy that would help him as president.

Not nominating him for VP, just pointing him out as a kick a$$ governor fixing a broken state with tough policy.

Paul Ryan for VP

 

[RDU Irish]

How do you make it worthwhile for a private enterprise to produce here?

I'm sure he wouldn't say, lower corporate taxes, streamline regulations, eliminate the minimum wage, promote cheap reliable energy, keep unions off their backs.

More along the lines of just require them to do it.

 

[RDU Irish]

Since his upside doesn't really exist, Obama is basically the Bob Davie of American presidents.

BOOM! Sorry can't rep you anymore.

 

[woolybug25]

Is there a problem with a heartless SOB cutting costs and sticking to core services within government? The rational see this as EXACTLY what is needed. The irrational can listen to the "job creator/ successful businessman" marketing and eat it up like the mouth breathing sheep they are. If you want to talk about lesser evils, look at Obama's (lack of) track record and tell me there is any indication he can do anything productive for this country, which was exactly the case four years ago but our populace forgot we were electing a president, not voting for an American Idol.

That really was my point. If someone doesn't have a problem with Romney being a corporate vampire, then that is totally fine. I have no problem with someone accepting or even preferring that.

But the "Romney the Job Creator" nonsense is completely fabricated. He was never in the business of trying to build companies back up. He was in the business of taking profit from them in whatever means was quickest and most profitable.

What it comes down to is what you feel is needed to fix our country? If you want a guy that will let major corporations like GM fold, someone that will come in and fire everyone, someone that will destroy all public services with no regard to the future consequences... then well... Romney's business experience suggest that you have found your man.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

No no no. A thousand times no. You're not following what I'm saying.

The Democratic party is made up of several big blocks: 1) unions or "blue dog" Dems, 2) minorities, 3) liberals.
Many of those liberals are also environmentalists, and environmentalists are hell bent on averting a calamitous disaster known as global warming. The goal of most "intellectual liberals" is to get America of fossil fuels as soon as possible. We have to get our energy form somewhere, so the only way to get America onto renewable resources is to do two things: 1) make renewable resources cheaper than fossil fuels, or 2) make fossil fuels more expensive than renewable resources.

The Obama Administration's energy policy is 20% option #1, 80% option #2.

But don't take my word for it, look at their own words:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K-pAvg6McPQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Look at what Obama has personally done to coal companies. Coal is, by far, the cheapest source of energy for this country. It, last I read, supplied 42% of this country's energy for a mere $30bil. That is sooo cheap compared to everything else. Even with natural gas prices falling, it's still 400% more expensive than coal. But coal plants are shutting down at rates never seen before. Obama is doing that directly.

(This is a video discussing Cap & Trade (which failed, thank God), and while slightly taken out of context by myself, it does show his intention to eliminate the coal industry.)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4aTf5gjvNvo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For America to be weened off of fossil fuels, the energy prices will have to rise until their are scientific breakthroughs in the renewable energy sector. I should state that I am in 100000% in favor of throwing all kinds of money at that research, but that's not what is going on. The environmentalists have Obama's balls here, and really the country's. We have soooo much energy in the country, we would never need to get oil from OPEC if we just opened up out supplies. ANWR is the size of Wisconsin, but a oil derricks will destroy it? GTFOOH.

Obama is making middle class Americans pay for the switch to renewables. I don't know how anybody in their right mind can say he is fighting for them when is very own policies will crush their purchasing power.

As for the oil companies... they aren't the ones price gauging. That is OPEC. Oil companies make a lower profit margin than normal corporations do. And you know what, they supply well-paying jobs to thousands upon thousands of engineers. The oil boom has single-handedly saved Ohio. My roommate made $60k worked for ten weeks as a petroleum engineer for them in Ohio/North Dakota/Pennsylvania. Let's not act like all that cash goes into some Cayman Island account for some evil dictator, it goes to people.

Unions are not blue dog Dems. Blue Dog Dems are more conservative voting dems. Look at Tim Holden from PA (who just lost in his new gerrymandered district). He would be considered a blue dog because he voted with Bush and the republicans on a lot of issues mainstream dems would not go along with.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I will vote for the current president with zero qualms... particularly given who he's running against.... of course there were some REALLY bad choices there until they were weeded out. The country needs the Executive and the Legislative to step up and form a strong plan [one for every one of our ten million problems] and stick with it for a serious amount of time. If there are stable plans and attendant ground rules for economic giants and government organizations and entrepreneurs and investors to have confidence in, then the creative people will find the way to a more sustainable future. The constant political strategy of bitching about every little thing that "the other side" does undermines everything. That has got to stop; it throws everything, materially and socially, into depression.

I have seen a lot of crappy administrations in my time, and we have survived them. The current one is far from the worst. And it has had almost unbelievable holes to try to dig out of with almost no general support. Hard for me to fault these guys. Maybe we will survive Romney as well, but he does not inspire confidence in me on any front, especially foreign affairs where he ranges from ignorant [yes he'll have advisors, but who will an ignorant man pick? ] to simplistically "political" [almost more dangerous.]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread; such things are never anything but trouble and drive wedges between people who otherwise could be friends, but, like all flawed humans, I stupidly have. New Year's resolution: it's the last time.

 

[mgriff]

Woolybug

Maybe I can help what you've been trying to say with leveraged buyouts, or asset-stripping or whatever they want to call it now since no one seems to be acknowledging your posts. It's borrowing money from a bank to make a purchase, stripping the purchased company of everything valuable, ie profiting from said company, piling the accumulating debt onto the company they bought in the form of interest repayments, instead of on their own books, and then leaving the carcass with all of the debt while they skip away with the jewels. The asset is then liable for the debt, not the purchaser. The banks encouraged wealthy companies to do this because there was little to no risk involved and money to be made by everyone.

Obama is a complete liar. He completely changed his tune on countless campaign promises, has not gotten us out of two wars and actually expanded our invasive foreign policy. I voted for him in '08, then I got serious about things and used my time in school to study politics, IR, and history and one thing is clear; there is no difference between the parties, you get the same from each. The same money is backing both parties and the same money is lobbying Congress and running our country. I for one will never again vote for the lesser of two evils. I will support realistic change in our country and that's it.

The left/right paradigm is so effective it's astonishing. Just look a this thread how easily people go after the other because they support the other side. We should be working together to change the country for the better, and stop letting these rich *******s run everything and **** us over at every turn. The game is rigged, the table is tilted!

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hYIC0eZYEtI" allowfullscreen="" width="420" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe>

I think Romney would do infinitely better economically than Obama and Obama is more to my taste as far as social liberties are concerned, but even then he supports the Patriot Act, et al. He's a shrewd deception. Overall, they aren't really that different in regards to policies.

If Romney has a snowball's chance in hell he needs to find a way to tap the most rabid resource available to him; Ron Paul's supporters. No one, not even our President, draws a crowd like RP, and that's a reflection on the country turning in a more libertarian direction. Short of Romney making Paul his Secretary of State or VP, I wouldn't vote for him nor do I think he'll be able to tap that base, but still, he needs to be figuring it out.

 

[RDU Irish]

Stop taxing the shite out of them and relax the regulations. Prime example is building an oil refinery. We have enough oil in this country to sustain ourselves, the problem is we only have a couple of refineries that can be used because the EPA has put crazy regulation on that industry, thus we buy the final product already refined from the middle east while our oil is exported.

Tax the chinese hard with tariff's and spearhead a major PR campaign to expose them for what they are..........a country that has no regard for child labor, human rights and workers rights.

Take care of our own, don't drive them out of business or make it next to impossible to start a business.

In a nutshell, this is the type of President we need, not some candy *** who looking for the richest pot.

10% of government revenue comes from corporate income taxes versus 40% from both Payroll taxes and Personal Income taxes (which includes taxes capital gains, dividends pensions, social security and all other "income" sources). Guess who provides so many of those jobs providing the source of personal and payroll taxes!

IMO a 10% corporate income tax and 0% repatriation would be plenty to keep and draw business here and encourage the free flow of capital to the effect of exploding payroll and personal income taxes. We spent $1 trillion on a stimulus which would be enough to fund 5 years of 0% corporate taxes! Oh, that rate would be flat with no loopholes.

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

While I am dreaming, I would put us on a consumption tax with a pre-bate per citizen. This puts the tax on the consumer instead of the producer and gives a competitive edge to citizens over non-citizens. Pre-bate is simple, clean and fair way to keep the tax code progressive and provides a natural level of unemployment/underemployment subsidy that is not subject to reams of red tape, manipulation and abuse.

 

[rock_knutne]

10% of government revenue comes from corporate income taxes versus 40% from both Payroll taxes and Personal Income taxes (which includes taxes capital gains, dividends pensions, social security and all other "income" sources). Guess who provides so many of those jobs providing the source of personal and payroll taxes!

IMO a 10% corporate income tax and 0% repatriation would be plenty to keep and draw business here and encourage the free flow of capital to the effect of exploding payroll and personal income taxes. We spent $1 trillion on a stimulus which would be enough to fund 5 years of 0% corporate taxes! Oh, that rate would be flat with no loopholes.

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

While I am dreaming, I would put us on a consumption tax with a pre-bate per citizen. This puts the tax on the consumer instead of the producer and gives a competitive edge to citizens over non-citizens. Pre-bate is simple, clean and fair way to keep the tax code progressive and provides a natural level of unemployment/underemployment subsidy that is not subject to reams of red tape, manipulation and abuse.

I would be for that........

 

[RDU Irish]

That really was my point. If someone doesn't have a problem with Romney being a corporate vampire, then that is totally fine. I have no problem with someone accepting or even preferring that.

But the "Romney the Job Creator" nonsense is completely fabricated. He was never in the business of trying to build companies back up. He was in the business of taking profit from them in whatever means was quickest and most profitable.

What it comes down to is what you feel is needed to fix our country? If you want a guy that will let major corporations like GM fold, someone that will come in and fire everyone, someone that will destroy all public services with no regard to the future consequences... then well... Romney's business experience suggest that you have found your man.

Thank you for reiterating that Romney is the only candidate with any inkling of a hope of reducing government spending and influence in our lives. I think your "fears" are largely overblown and he will take a very moderate approach ensure reelection and if anything give a Republican House and Senate some fits of disagreement for fear of being painted to partisan.

Is it safe to say you are only voting AGAINST one candidate and not FOR the other?

And for the record, I find it abhorent that people think our government should pick winners and losers in ANY business, even if it is our precious auto industry. Almost as abhorent as the lack of knowledge of bankruptcy process that leads to obtuse statements like " let major corporations like GM fold" insinuating every single employee was going to permanently lose their jobs and the company would evaporate into oblivion if Obama hadn't ridden in like the Old Spice commercial guy to save the day.

 

[BobD]

As a human being, Welch is a total jerk... but GE grew 4000% over his tenure as CEO. He may not be able to take all of the credit for it, but he certainly deserves some for it.



- Agilent
- Amazon
- Chevron
- Cintas
- Computer Sciences Corp
- John Deere
- Dell
- DOW
- DuPont
- Gieco
- GE
- Heinz
- Honeywell
- LG Group
- Lockhead Martin
- Merrill Lynch
- PepsiCo
- Siemens
- Hertz
- Staples
- Trane
- Target Corp
- McGraw Hill
- Toshiba
- Whirlpool
- Texas Instruments

I'm not a "lean and mean" six-sigma nerd or anything, but there are a lot of successful companies that utilize it.

You're more old fashioned than I thought wooly : )

Most of those companies are phasing out Six Sigma or using watered down versions at best. Since 2006 or so, companies had noticed they were being slowed down and innovation was stifled by Six Sigma. It has it longest success in manufacturing but even here, its best used as a tool not as a total philosophy as Welch promoted it. I find it interesting that Motorola where it was born didn't make your list?

Here is my take on Six Sigma from my simple mind:

Lets make common sense business sound extemely complicated just in case this expensive suit doesn't scare them enough, then we will start sort of a pyramid scheme where we will pump up mid level exec's by giving them titles like "Black Belt", then we will have them do our dirty work by coming up with pretty sounding reasons for slowly cutting off the costly (and most innovative) bottom portion of our pyramid (the common worker and their benefits), we can shift that cr@p overseas, to make our company look more attractive to share holders. When the bottom of the pyramid reaches the mid level exec's we can cut their pay and treat them like pawns they were.

Yes I'm ducking my head as I press Submit Reply.

 

[RDU Irish]

I will vote for the current president with zero qualms... particularly given who he's running against.... of course there were some REALLY bad choices there until they were weeded out. The country needs the Executive and the Legislative to step up and form a strong plan [one for every one of our ten million problems] and stick with it for a serious amount of time. If there are stable plans and attendant ground rules for economic giants and government organizations and entrepreneurs and investors to have confidence in, then the creative people will find the way to a more sustainable future. The constant political strategy of bitching about every little thing that "the other side" does undermines everything. That has got to stop; it throws everything, materially and socially, into depression.

I have seen a lot of crappy administrations in my time, and we have survived them. The current one is far from the worst. And it has had almost unbelievable holes to try to dig out of with almost no general support. Hard for me to fault these guys. Maybe we will survive Romney as well, but he does not inspire confidence in me on any front, especially foreign affairs where he ranges from ignorant [yes he'll have advisors, but who will an ignorant man pick? ] to simplistically "political" [almost more dangerous.]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread; such things are never anything but trouble and drive wedges between people who otherwise could be friends, but, like all flawed humans, I stupidly have. New Year's resolution: it's the last time.

I see nothing in here that indicates Obama is more qualified or different than Romney to address your concerns. I find the bolded portion particularly perplexing since it is directed at Romney and not Obama? You lament the bickering yet provide no positive substance for the current administration other than the common stance of "well Bush got two so why not this moron too?" Obviously not a direct quote there but seems a paraphrase of the "logic" behind a lot of the Obama "support" in this thread.

If someone wants to convince me to vote for Obama, I would like to see where he has worked across the aisle or even make the case that gridlock is the best option and house and Senate need a Dem balast if they are going strong Republican this cycle.

BTW - Kudos to everyone for keeping this pretty civil.

 

[johnnykillz]

As a human being, Welch is a total jerk... but GE grew 4000% over his tenure as CEO. He may not be able to take all of the credit for it, but he certainly deserves some for it.



- Agilent
- Amazon
- Chevron
- Cintas
- Computer Sciences Corp
- John Deere
- Dell
- DOW
- DuPont
- Gieco
- GE
- Heinz
- Honeywell
- LG Group
- Lockhead Martin
- Merrill Lynch
- PepsiCo
- Siemens
- Hertz
- Staples
- Trane
- Target Corp
- McGraw Hill
- Toshiba
- Whirlpool
- Texas Instruments

I'm not a "lean and mean" six-sigma nerd or anything, but there are a lot of successful companies that utilize it.

Bell Helicopter
Owens Corning

 

[woolybug25]

Thank you for reiterating that Romney is the only candidate with any inkling of a hope of reducing government spending and influence in our lives. I think your "fears" are largely overblown and he will take a very moderate approach ensure reelection and if anything give a Republican House and Senate some fits of disagreement for fear of being painted to partisan.

Is it safe to say you are only voting AGAINST one candidate and not FOR the other?

And for the record, I find it abhorent that people think our government should pick winners and losers in ANY business, even if it is our precious auto industry. Almost as abhorent as the lack of knowledge of bankruptcy process that leads to obtuse statements like " let major corporations like GM fold" insinuating every single employee was going to permanently lose their jobs and the company would evaporate into oblivion if Obama hadn't ridden in like the Old Spice commercial guy to save the day.

I think you are mistaking my belief that Romney will cut all infrastructure with being fiscally responsible. Quite the contrary. They are separate matters all together. I think of the economy as a business. A well ran business invests in training their employees, in equipment and tools that allow their employees to be enabled to achieve success. Romney's business skills aren't relevant to those types of changes. His business skills are cash flow skills, not management. So while I totally agree that he would cut spending, I believe that he would do it at the expense of the infrastructure of this country. We need long term fixes, not short term cashflow adjustment.

Regarding GM, people forget that it wasn't letting one whiny little company fail. It was letting an entire american industry fail. It also effected a ton of other industries too. The companies that manufacture the brake pads, the company that provides the fasteners, the plastic companies that mold the bumpers. They all would have came down with GM. For as much as Conservatives want to blame Obama for not creating jobs, I find it bizarre that so many of you are completely ok with putting that many people, in that many industries out of work.

 

[RDU Irish]

You're more old fashioned than I thought wooly : )

Most of those companies are phasing out Six Sigma or using watered down versions at best. Since 2006 or so, companies had noticed they were being slowed down and innovation was stifled by Six Sigma. It has it longest success in manufacturing but even here, its best used as a tool not as a total philosophy as Welch promoted it. I find it interesting that Motorola where it was born didn't make your list?

Here is my take on Six Sigma from my simple mind:

Lets make common sense business sound extemely complicated just in case this expensive suit doesn't scare them enough, then we will start sort of a pyramid scheme where we will pump up mid level exec's by giving them titles like "Black Belt", then we will have them do our dirty work by coming up with pretty sounding reasons for slowly cutting off the costly (and most innovative) bottom portion of our pyramid (the common worker and their benefits), we can shift that cr@p overseas, to make our company look more attractive to share holders. When the bottom of the pyramid reaches the mid level exec's we can cut their pay and treat them like pawns they were.

Yes I'm ducking my head as I press Submit Reply.

Nice. I think I agree with you substantially but I don't see it all as evil. The free markets would fix this more quickly but GE is figuring out they need to become political to push their wares rather than "innovate" and grow organically.

Immelt in last week's Barrons interview said they are researching the effectiveness of moving operations overseas and finding over time they save no money. I think he is pandering to Washington since GE is in the government business more than anything but funny to see GE saying this. Almost as funny as Immelt saying GE would be at $60 to day if it traded at the multiple it was when he took over. And if my aunt had a d!ck she woudl be my uncle Jeff!

My take on why GE execs are "pumped up"? They don't realize how beat up they are until they get out of that freaking gulag and get a respectable job somewhere else. They are so damn busy chasing their tail they don't have time to realize the grass is very green on the other side of the fence relative to fighting for scraps where they are. Other companies know these guys think 70 hours is a light week and won't fail from a lack of effort. Great training ground for up and coming managers IMO.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm not afraid to admit this, but most of this thread has been over my head. I didn't study economics in school. I don't follow history or government issues as closely as I should. I feel like I'm completely lost and living in another country when I read these posts...and guess what...I'm probably the majority of this country. The majority of this country would rather read the Bang Bang thread for entertainment than follow along in this thread (one in which they'd actually learn something from you all). And that's the problem. Too many people (who don't know enough about the issues at hand) will say, "I'm Republican so I'm voting for Romney." (and D for Obama). Instead, they should be educating themselves on the true major issues with the country and voting for the PERSON (not party) that will bring things back to where it needs to be. The president and the house need to set their egos aside and work out these problems as a whole. Until that happens, IMO, it doesn't matter who the president is. In four years, we'll be having this discussion again.

 

[woolybug25]

You're more old fashioned than I thought wooly : )

Most of those companies are phasing out Six Sigma or using watered down versions at best. Since 2006 or so, companies had noticed they were being slowed down and innovation was stifled by Six Sigma. It has it longest success in manufacturing but even here, its best used as a tool not as a total philosophy as Welch promoted it. I find it interesting that Motorola where it was born didn't make your list?

Here is my take on Six Sigma from my simple mind:

Lets make common sense business sound extemely complicated just in case this expensive suit doesn't scare them enough, then we will start sort of a pyramid scheme where we will pump up mid level exec's by giving them titles like "Black Belt", then we will have them do our dirty work by coming up with pretty sounding reasons for slowly cutting off the costly (and most innovative) bottom portion of our pyramid (the common worker and their benefits), we can shift that cr@p overseas, to make our company look more attractive to share holders. When the bottom of the pyramid reaches the mid level exec's we can cut their pay and treat them like pawns they were.

Yes I'm ducking my head as I press Submit Reply.

I hear, homie. I wouldn't say that the majority of them are moving it out though. Companies like GE and Honeywell are deeply entrenched in it. They do have a "cult-like" feel to them though. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the points you made. Another thing that I would add is that it is designed around top-down change. Enabling mid level managers to rise to the top or fall out of ferver (sounds like our govt, eh). I am a bigger fan of management philosophies that are bottom-up. Ones that enable low level workers to take on more responsibility and push the people above them. I believe that it is human nature to want to achieve more. So that being the case, give the people that have the most desire to improve themselves the tools to do so.

Regarding Motorolla, I just overlooked them. Ironic considering they are the ones that developed it. lol

 

[RDU Irish]

I think you are mistaking my belief that Romney will cut all infrastructure with being fiscally responsible. Quite the contrary. They are separate matters all together. I think of the economy as a business. A well ran business invests in training their employees, in equipment and tools that allow their employees to be enabled to achieve success. Romney's business skills aren't relevant to those types of changes. His business skills are cash flow skills, not management. So while I totally agree that he would cut spending, I believe that he would do it at the expense of the infrastructure of this country. We need long term fixes, not short term cashflow adjustment.

Regarding GM, people forget that it wasn't letting one whiny little company fail. It was letting an entire american industry fail. It also effected a ton of other industries too. The companies that manufacture the brake pads, the company that provides the fasteners, the plastic companies that mold the bumpers. They all would have came down with GM. For as much as Conservatives want to blame Obama for not creating jobs, I find it bizarre that so many of you are completely ok with putting that many people, in that many industries out of work.

I don't understand? Who was going to supply 20% of the auto market if GM evaporated? We just would have to do without 20% of new cars? How did Ford make it? GM's problem was one of becoming over leveraged with debt and liabilities for employee benefits. It was not an inability to produce cars competitively, it was an uncompetitive balance sheet. Bankruptcy fixes a balance sheet and allows an otherwise profitable business to move on.

Who here is from Florida? When Winn Dixie went bankrupt, how many days were the stores closed? Any major malls near you? If it was owned by General Growth Properties, how many days were those malls closed? The answer is ZERO. Go figure out why and you will see the complete falacy of your GM argument.

 

[mgriff]

Just an example about outsourcing; when Levi Strauss moved their production to Mexico, my jeans didn't get cheaper, but their profits grew. It's certainly their right to choose to do that, just like it's my right not to buy their product, but some of the bullshit people spout off about is astounding. No one has our best interests at heart.

As far as the GM thing, **** that. No one gets bailed out. You make bad business moves, you fail, simple as. I thought everyone was equal in this country? Once again, not the case. **** the people and their businesses, but they'll put up money to save big business. It's not fair, and it's not right.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I hear, homie. I wouldn't say that the majority of them are moving it out though. Companies like GE and Honeywell are deeply entrenched in it. They do have a "cult-like" feel to them though. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the points you made. Another thing that I would add is that it is designed around top-down change. Enabling mid level managers to rise to the top or fall out of ferver (sounds like our govt, eh). I am a bigger fan of management philosophies that are bottom-up. Ones that enable low level workers to take on more responsibility and push the people above them. I believe that it is human nature to want to achieve more. So that being the case, give the people that have the most desire to improve themselves the tools to do so.

Regarding Motorolla, I just overlooked them. Ironic considering they are the ones that developed it. lol

Here is the rub with that. Six Sigma when used correctly is about empowering the individual at the lowest level. Allower that person to see how his/her decisions impact the company. I have seen many people light up with pride when you show them that by their idea (btw, most operational improvement ideas come from this group anyway) saved money or improved flow.

Again, when used correctly, it is an amazing tool. I do agree however, that the moment a company becomes obsessed with it, it works against you.

 

[RDU Irish]

I think you are mistaking my belief that Romney will cut all infrastructure with being fiscally responsible. Quite the contrary. They are separate matters all together. I think of the economy as a business. A well ran business invests in training their employees, in equipment and tools that allow their employees to be enabled to achieve success. Romney's business skills aren't relevant to those types of changes. His business skills are cash flow skills, not management. So while I totally agree that he would cut spending, I believe that he would do it at the expense of the infrastructure of this country. We need long term fixes, not short term cashflow adjustment.

Please source this concept that Romney will cut all infrastructure? Will he also forbid states from fixing their own infrastructure as well? Infrastructure was something like 5% of the stimulus. It is a miniscule portion of the overall budget. Thinking this cut will save the budget is like thinking taxing 100% on the rich raise enough $$$ to close the deficit.You sound like you are confusing Ron Paul with Romney when it comes to cuts. Romney (wisely) has not indicated much of anything that he will cut. That is policitally wise since you just become a scape goat the minute you mention any cuts.

Cut the Department of Education. OMG!!! He hates kids and teachers!!!!
Cut Ag. OMG!!! He hates farmers and we will all starve!!!
I think we all understand the policital expediency of keeping your policy vague and indirect, unless we slept through the last election anyway.

Further - our "business" is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. If that is not a problem in need of serious "cash flow skills" please tell me what is. We will be in no position to fix the "business" end if the cash flows are killing the ability to invest in ourselves. I don't disagree that Romney isn't a "real" businessman, he is just the closest thing we have available in our two man race. I consider a "community organizer" the opposite of a businessman for the most part. I still wait for valid reasons to vote FOR Obama because you and everyone else here only state why to vote AGAINST Romney.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Just an example about outsourcing; when Levi Strauss moved their production to Mexico, my jeans didn't get cheaper, but their profits grew. It's certainly their right to choose to do that, just like it's my right not to buy their product, but some of the bullshit people spout off about is astounding. No one has our best interests at heart.

As far as the GM thing, **** that. No one gets bailed out. You make bad business moves, you fail, simple as. I thought everyone was equal in this country? Once again, not the case. **** the people and their businesses, but they'll put up money to save big business. It's not fair, and it's not right.

What do you think Levi did with that exra money?

 

[Buster Bluth]

And here is the 5% I disagree on. Source please for interchange cost? How much of that is land acquisition? What is the cost per mile to construct a road new road versus repairing an exsisting one? How much is the surrounding land appreciated due to knew commercial value? Don't see many shopping centers, distribution centers, or other commercial centers placed on rail lines.

Sources? My family's road construction company turned 100 years old this summer, and I'm a city planner. There's your sources.

There's no question that it creates a value. The problem is where it creates the value, and how long that value lasts. Not all growth is good, random growth for the sake of growth is actually quite bad. In the medical field they would call that, well, cancer. Just as cancer can kill a body, suburbanization can kill a city/region.

Simply put, American development from 1950-2000 was very, very incorrect. I am not at all saying that everyone should live in an apartment building like we live in Manhattan or something, single-family homes are fine. But our sprawling nearly ruined the country; we are only now starting to repair it. Interstates and freeways are largely responsible for this.

Consider this: here in Columbus there is a mall just to the north called Polaris. Directly north of that is the city of Delaware. The sprawl is creeping into the southern edge of the county, and Delaware Officials pitched a plan to build this awesome new shopping mecca, creating hundreds of jobs and over a billion dollars in tax revenue over ten years. Sounds awesome huh? Well, for Delaware County is does, they'd see a tremendous boost in revenue. But does it actually create wealth? No. Does it create a value? Yeah. All it would really do is suck the life out Polaris and move that money to Delaware.

Likewise, building an interstate ring (i.e. access to the suburban countryside and room for development) certainly creates value, but it sure as hell does not create additional wealth for the region. In reality it's a strain.

 

[RDU Irish]

What do you think Levi did with that exra money?

Lobbied Congress to outlaw Wrangler.

Either that or stay in business as a profitable, competitive entity against knock-off jeans from third world countries (whose sales increase the standard of living for those third world residents).

 

[Buster Bluth]

.

 

[woolybug25]

I don't understand? Who was going to supply 20% of the auto market if GM evaporated? We just would have to do without 20% of new cars? How did Ford make it? GM's problem was one of becoming over leveraged with debt and liabilities for employee benefits. It was not an inability to produce cars competitively, it was an uncompetitive balance sheet. Bankruptcy fixes a balance sheet and allows an otherwise profitable business to move on.

Who here is from Florida? When Winn Dixie went bankrupt, how many days were the stores closed? Any major malls near you? If it was owned by General Growth Properties, how many days were those malls closed? The answer is ZERO. Go figure out why and you will see the complete falacy of your GM argument.

That's not how it would have worked. First of all, bankruptcy isn't the hypothetical slate wiping you are portraying it as. Tax payers would have had to pay for that too. Winn Dixie was able to find banks to leverage their assets and provide financing for them to maintain operations through liquidation. GM didn't have that luxury.

Furthermore, none of those options were available to GM or Chrysler for that matter. Months into the financial crisis, rapidly running out of cash, the auto companies couldn't find anyone interested in buying their assets (I know, because we wouldn't). Even if they could, no banks were in a position to lend to would-be acquirers, nor would they provide the financing needed to keep the automakers operating during the Chapter 11 process. When GM filed for bankruptcy in June 2009, a U.S. District Court ruled that the Treasury was the only potential source for the $15 billion in DIP financing GM needed to continue operating. Which means the taxpayers would have had to foot any bill of keeping them open and that number wouldn't have included the $50 Billion necessary to dissolve their debt streams.

Finally, no one was about to buy cars from a company in Chapter 11 without some sort of guarantee. Ask Mercury, Geo and Saturn how many cars they were selling when they dissolved. They would have lost even more market share and probably would have never recovered. The Bailout had more to do with setting them up for success than simply giving them a handout.

As far as your question on "who would supply the 20% of the automarket" question. China would have. With their workers, while ours sat around looking for jobs that didn't exist.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Lobbied Congress to outlaw Wrangler.

Either that or stay in business as a profitable, competitive entity against knock-off jeans from third world countries (whose sales increase the standard of living for those third world residents).

Liar.

 

[mgriff]

What do you think Levi did with that exra money?

It's simply an example for outsourcing. All of these companies are outsourcing saying it helps drive down cost, not for the consumer, but to keep their profit levels. American workers first of all need to learn that we have to work for less than we would like, but also, costs need to be driven down. They can't have it both ways, keeping their profits high by outsourcing while at the same time keeping their prices at the same levels. The middle class is eroding and this is a major reason. If we aren't compensated with the same increases to account for inflation, then the prices have to stabilize and drop, which isn't happening. Right now we have frozen wages while inflation continues.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It's simply an example for outsourcing. All of these companies are outsourcing saying it helps drive down cost, not for the consumer, but to keep their profit levels. American workers first of all need to learn that we have to work for less than we would like, but also, costs need to be driven down. They can't have it both ways, keeping their profits high by outsourcing while at the same time keeping their prices at the same levels. The middle class is eroding and this is a major reason. If we aren't compensated with the same increases to account for inflation, then the prices have to stabilize and drop, which isn't happening. Right now we have frozen wages while inflation continues.

But the profits have to go somewhere, right?

Look, I am not trying to be an azz here. I am just trying to illustrate some points.