[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

but not neccessairily by the indivduals in question. Such crashes can cause great suffering to, for example, workers in decimated areas, and yes, they kill many a pension fund. Enron is an excellent case of that.

Again not arguing against the facts here. But blame it on the stupid people who decided they wanted all retirement benefits to be put in high-flying Enron stock, because they had 11 other plan options to diversify. Also most of the value that was lost had been gained in a very short time, only late buyers were seriously punished. They went against investment fundamentals of buying too high and following trends too late.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No, we can't expect that. But the way the stock-market works, is that it encourages the destruction of long-term profitability fo short term stock-value gains. We live in a speculative economy where values and livelyhoods aren't based on real things (like sales or available money) but on how the market feels.

That is mainly false, since prices are often determined by earnings, sales, and free cash flow. No one forces anyone to follow trends and relatively few analysts encourage it. So you say that it cause a bad effect on the economy but you can only provide a few examples. None of these actually reflect on the broad market (especially over time).

Also what is your proposed solution to this huge "problem" of speculation?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It was because of a lack of accounting standards (Sarbanes Oxley) that GM could mak that change and look good for doing it, and it was because of a focus on stock-prices over viability that the deal looked god to the directors.

They are all now rich and retired.

So did you predict this 30 years ago? Because if you didn't you must of been trying to screw the company too (jk of course). I still blame the unions of course. They held too much power and sway and none of the executives could of predicted this huge onslaught of colmpetition and giant costs of health care and such.

[JerryLove]

Again not arguing against the facts here. But blame it on the stupid people who decided they wanted all retirement benefits to be put in high-flying Enron stock, because they had 11 other plan options to diversify. Also most of the value that was lost had been gained in a very short time, only late buyers were seriously punished. They went against investment fundamentals of buying too high and following trends too late.

Individuals don't have control over their pension funds.

That is mainly false, since prices are often determined by earnings, sales, and free cash flow. No one forces anyone to follow trends and relatively few analysts encourage it. So you say that it cause a bad effect on the economy but you can only provide a few examples. None of these actually reflect on the broad market (especially over time).

I was working for a company. A client wanted a macchine built we had never built. We built it. Before we could finish software for it, we shipped it to the customer. We (the software team) pointed out that we needed the machine for testing but it was shipped.

The customer got a non-working machine and was unhappy. We flew a tech out at our expense to install the software, which didn't work because it was buggy. More unhappy customer. We felw out on two more occassions with patches from attemts to remote troubleshoot. We wasted many tens of thousands (more perhaps) of dollars and all but alienated a customer because we didn't keep a machine an extra 3 weeks.

So why didn't we just keep it? Because that 3 weeks would have put us in Q2 and so the shipment would have not shown up on the Q1 books. That would have lowered our stock value that quarter.

Business operates on quaterly stock values, not on long term viability.

Also what is your proposed solution to this huge "problem" of speculation?

We can start by removing quarterly earnings reports. We can also not give CEOs tremendous stock, or better still make their stock take years before its tradeable. That would be a start.

So did you predict this 30 years ago? Because if you didn't you must of been trying to screw the company too (jk of course). I still blame the unions of course. They held too much power and sway and none of the executives could of predicted this huge onslaught of colmpetition and giant costs of health care and such.

That's about as true as Bush's "no one predicted the levies would break". Of course this was predicted. The math would be simple to any accountant. Why do you think the UAW accepted pay-cuts for it? Because they knew they were getting the good end.

As to unions being unreasonable, then don't agree to the contracts. Move offshore if neccessairy, or to a right to work state like FL.

[Fandrew]

I assume somehow this thread relates to the recent revelation that Daimler-Chrysler is selling off the Chrysler Brand to avoid paying several workers' retirement funds. Interesting.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Individuals don't have control over their pension funds.

Yes they had the options to choose the type of plan they wanted in this particular case (not all employers will give the option). Once the money is chosen to be invested in the plan, they have very little control.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That's about as true as Bush's "no one predicted the levies would break". Of course this was predicted. The math would be simple to any accountant. Why do you think the UAW accepted pay-cuts for it? Because they knew they were getting the good end.

People predict everything. . . It just matters which ideas are heard last. I have no doubt the UAW knew they were getting a good deal, and I think GM just thought that continuing sales growth would continue to grow and cover those benefits. But Oh the shock, that they didn't know that sales would stop growing 30-40 years later, and that there would be huge foreign competition!!!

Originally Posted by JerryLove

As to unions being unreasonable, then don't agree to the contracts. Move offshore if neccessairy, or to a right to work state like FL.

I agree. People will complain either, the company may as well dispute the contracts. Also less and less people today are being unionized which shows very good on the economy. It will be more flexible and retain an economic advantage.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Yes they had the options to choose the type of plan they wanted in this particular case (not all employers will give the option). Once the money is chosen to be invested in the plan, they have very little control.

You just admitted not all do. So my point stands as stated.

People predict everything. . . It just matters which ideas are heard last. I have no doubt the UAW knew they were getting a good deal, and I think GM just thought that continuing sales growth would continue to grow and cover those benefits.

I'm quite certain from the discussions with people involved that the management at GM simply didn't care. They were concerned about sagging stock prices and stock prices were influened by earnings reports and earnings reports at the time didn't account for future losses... so they robbed Peter to pay Paul knowing that they would be gone before it came back.

But Oh the shock, that they didn't know that sales would stop growing 30-40 years later, and that there would be huge foreign competition!!!

You are imagining without support.

I agree. People will complain either, the company may as well dispute the contracts.

The contracts are legit... even if they were ill-advised from a perspective of long-term viability.

Also less and less people today are being unionized which shows very good on the economy. It will be more flexible and retain an economic advantage.

Riight. That explains the wider income gap and high rate of offshoring, not to mention the gigantic trade deficit and nationall debt.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You just admitted not all do. So my point stands as stated.

If an employee at a midsize firm in Wyoming doesn't have control of his pension it still has nothing to do with Enron or the auto companies.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm quite certain from the discussions with people involved that the management at GM simply didn't care. They were concerned about sagging stock prices and stock prices were influened by earnings reports and earnings reports at the time didn't account for future losses... so they robbed Peter to pay Paul knowing that they would be gone before it came back.

I guess we can also say I do not care. This can be easily deduced because I can't actually tell what will happen in 30-40 years.

My whole point here is that they really can't be blamed. Few corporations even live this long. They managed a company cutting short term costs increasing long term liabilities. If I owned a business I would do it too. It would benefit me in the long run because of the profit I make now will cover the inflation adjustments in the future. They should of diversified their liabilities more (by say only having half of the employees to the pension and the other half stays the same), but they didn't. Investors over these 30-40 years have been paid in full and noone should lose any confidence in the market because of 1 companies lack of insight many many years ago.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are imagining without support.

So you are saying that you can accurately predict what sales will be like in 30-40 years, and what the competition atmosphere will be like at your company?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The contracts are legit... even if they were ill-advised from a perspective of long-term viability.

Yes they are. But they should not be renewed, GM must take control of the negotiations and force major cuts, and allowances to fire whoever and how many they need to.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Riight. That explains the wider income gap and high rate of offshoring, not to mention the gigantic trade deficit and nationall debt.

Offshoring is generally good for our interests. The trade deficit means absolutely nothing. The national debt is fairly bad but it has virtually no effect on the economy, but reflects that the government is simply too large and should spend less (not that they should tax and spend more, which is democrat thinking).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

If an employee at a midsize firm in Wyoming doesn't have control of his pension it still has nothing to do with Enron or the auto companies.

It does if his pension fund invested heavily in one or the other.

I guess we can also say I do not care. This can be easily deduced because I can't actually tell what will happen in 30-40 years.

Really? Everyone else could. The math was pretty simple.

I suppose you think an baloon-mortguage is good because you don't know what will happen in 3 years. I can tell you, your mortgauge payments will baloon.

My whole point here is that they really can't be blamed. Few corporations even live this long. They managed a company cutting short term costs increasing long term liabilities.

They were over a half-century old, assuming we only look at the 50s.

If I owned a business I would do it too. It would benefit me in the long run because of the profit I make now will cover the inflation adjustments in the future.

Huh? What "inflation adjustments" are you talking about?

They agreed, in the future, to cover the health costs of many more workers than they actually employed, and to pay many more workers than they actuall imployed. The result was, predictably, much higher personell costs in the future.

And no amount of growth could fix it, though that would offest some of the costs in the mid-term, it would make them that much higher in the end. It's pretty simply math.

They should of diversified their liabilities more (by say only having half of the employees to the pension and the other half stays the same), but they didn't.

And how would you get te other half to sign off on the contract?

Investors over these 30-40 years have been paid in full and noone should lose any confidence in the market because of 1 companies lack of insight many many years ago.

I'd just hurl some personal comments here if I responded.

So you are saying that you can accurately predict what sales will be like in 30-40 years, and what the competition atmosphere will be like at your company?

nope. I can accurately predict that the contract signed by GM would make it uncompetative regardless of how sales went.

Yes they are. But they should not be renewed, GM must take control of the negotiations and force major cuts, and allowances to fire whoever and how many they need to.

You can't. That's what "contract" means.

Offshoring is generally good for our interests. The trade deficit means absolutely nothing.

It devalues US currency lowing the real money of Americans, and of American business. At least it will if America ever has a major economic rival. Good thing there's none of those. *cough*China*cough*

The national debt is fairly bad but it has virtually no effect on the economy, but reflects that the government is simply too large and should spend less (not that they should tax and spend more, which is democrat thinking).

How come democrats lower the deficit then?