Anyone buying GM Stock in IPO?

[Eagleone]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

This thread is epic troll bait.

Completely agree.

BTW: Why don't we have a tin foil hat smiley?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Berean

You kept saying that because the board appointees weren't government employees, then the government therefore couldn't possibly control the company.

That argument doesn't follow any logic, so it can't be "disproven". That's a straw man.

Anyway, the point is, the government did appoint the board, and as a result, I think the administration controls the company. Anyone can be a political puppet, they don't have to come from government.

If you feel otherwise, fine, but I think the (few) actual facts we have, would lead an objective person to conclude that the administration is exercising some degree of control over the company.

I think a logical debate would be about the degree of control, not whether it exists.

But if its all about 'informal control' then its no different than any other company. They could walk up to Allan Mulally and say 'Ford had better build a ___ ' and he'd be just as obligated to listen as Ed Whitacre is, that is to say, no obligation.

btw, you have a very different interpretation of a strawman argument than I've ever heard. I am aware of the 'cannot be disproven' fallacy, I forget what it is though. But it would be best if we avoided analyzing all the formal argument mistakes we've each made, after-all this is not a dedicated debate sub-forum so the rules of such debates don't really apply. Sorta like complaining about an off-side in a pick-up game of soccer.

[jrc1122]

To say the Government doesn't effect what cars that Chevy (or any other company for that matter) builds, Is to refuse to logically break down the specific roles of the EPA and NHTSA

A little known Bureaucracy called the EPA. They put stricter and stricter rules on emissions, and mpg. And that is from the past two administrations for sure.

Do you think Chevy doesn't realize that nearly every Camaro owner is going to eliminate the skip shift feature.. So why add it? Just for the sake of making the car more expensive.. Nope.. They are trying to meet government regulations for MPG and keep the customers from having to pay a special gas guzzler tax.

I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but seriously, people really need to open their eyes. There is TONS of government intrusion in the auto industry.

Some over site is probably a good thing, but I am a firm believer in the consumer. I think if the EPA and SAFETY ratings weren't mandated by the Government that ultimately the consumer would still demand it from the manufacturer - to the level they feel is necessary to keep them safe, reliable, and a decent mpg.

Example if Chevy makes a Sports car, that is horribly unsafe, and gets 6mpg. And Ford, makes an equally impressive performing car that is much safer, and gets 15mpg.. Which am I going to choose.. Then competition factor kicks in. They will then build cars based off what the people want, not what the government body demands they build.

If the demand for 40mpg 150hp hybrids is truly there (without government tax credits, and loans to help build the facilities, etc) Then that is what will be built.

There are Billions of people on this planet. There is room for competition and all sizes and types of cars.

I've shared my thoughts... continue on combating each other ....

[Berean]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

But if its all about 'informal control' then its no different than any other company. They could walk up to Allan Mulally and say 'Ford had better build a ___ ' and he'd be just as obligated to listen as Ed Whitacre is, that is to say, no obligation.

btw, you have a very different interpretation of a strawman argument than I've ever heard. I am aware of the 'cannot be disproven' fallacy, I forget what it is though. But it would be best if we avoided analyzing all the formal argument mistakes we've each made, after-all this is not a dedicated debate sub-forum so the rules of such debates don't really apply. Sorta like complaining about an off-side in a pick-up game of soccer.

It's a mixture of formal (GM keep your headquarters in Detroit and appoint this CEO), and informal (board members who are beholden to the administration and will carry out their policies, like sympathetic union policies etc.), and regulatory (same as any other car company).

Let's see what happens when the union contract comes up next year.

Here's Wikipedia's definition of a straw man:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]"

You refuted my argument of government control by substituting the argument that board members didn't come from a government agency (the straw man), then refuting that, said that my argument was refuted.

My argument wasn't where the board members came from, it was whether or not they (the company) were controlled by the government.


Edit to add: I see where my comment above wasn't a good definition of a straw man. I knew what I was thinking, it just didn't translate to paper correctly.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Berean

Interesting claim because yours is also an "I'm right, you're wrong" perspective.

Then you're beginning to see the point I wrote that post at all. The points I made are irrelevant. The 'facts' unknowable because none of us are on the board. And our opinions...both of them...are completely worthless.

This conversation will continue to go in circles, because nobody...not me, not you...actually "knows". And so nobody can be right.

I'm asking for it to stop. It's borderline politics, baseless, and completely off-topic. You can believe what you want to believe regarding this topic, but keep it off the boards.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Then you're beginning to see the point I wrote that post at all. The points I made are irrelevant. The 'facts' unknowable because none of us are on the board. And our opinions...both of them...are completely worthless.

This conversation will continue to go in circles, because nobody...not me, not you...actually "knows". And so nobody can be right.

I'm asking for it to stop. It's borderline politics, baseless, and completely off-topic. You can believe what you want to believe regarding this topic, but keep it off the boards.

I'm fine with that, close the thread then.

One thing to consider though, since GM is a government owned company, it's going to be nearly impossible to eliminate any political discussions that evolve from threads about company business.

I think there should be some leeway (and I think there has been in this thread), to discuss these issues in a civil way, especially if there are moderators taking sides in the debate.

If not, then threads about company business probably shouldn't be allowed at all.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Berean

I'm fine with that, close the thread then.

One thing to consider though, since GM is a government owned company, it's going to be nearly impossible to eliminate any political discussions that evolve from threads about company business.

I think there should be some leeway (and I think there has been in this thread), to discuss these issues in a civil way, especially if there are moderators taking sides in the debate.

If not, then threads about company business probably shouldn't be allowed at all.

I have no intentions of closing the thread...the original topic is still relevant. IPO will be started later this year. Will you buy? If not, or if you already answered -- move along.

It is VERY easy to discuss company-related issues without delving into politics. VERY easy. If you'd like me to illustrate, please shoot me a PM and I'll explain.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It is VERY easy to discuss company-related issues without delving into politics. VERY easy. If you'd like me to illustrate, please shoot me a PM and I'll explain.

Feel free to shoot me a PM any time you like, and if it's easy to do, then I'm sure the moderators will refrain from taking sides in a future political discussion.


And no, I won't be buying any GM stock. As a taxpayer, and Camaro buyer, I've invested enough money in the company.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Berean

Feel free to shoot me a PM any time you like, and if it's easy to do, then I'm sure the moderators will refrain from taking sides in a future political discussion.

Just 'cause it's easy doesn't mean we're Vulcans.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Just 'cause it's easy doesn't mean we're Vulcans.

Live long and prosper anyway.

[Eagleone]

Originally Posted by jrc1122

To say the Government doesn't effect what cars that Chevy (or any other company for that matter) builds, Is to refuse to logically break down the specific roles of the EPA and NHTSA

A little known Bureaucracy called the EPA. They put stricter and stricter rules on emissions, and mpg. And that is from the past two administrations for sure.

Do you think Chevy doesn't realize that nearly every Camaro owner is going to eliminate the skip shift feature.. So why add it? Just for the sake of making the car more expensive.. Nope.. They are trying to meet government regulations for MPG and keep the customers from having to pay a special gas guzzler tax.

I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but seriously, people really need to open their eyes. There is TONS of government intrusion in the auto industry.

Some over site is probably a good thing, but I am a firm believer in the consumer. I think if the EPA and SAFETY ratings weren't mandated by the Government that ultimately the consumer would still demand it from the manufacturer - to the level they fill is necessary to keep them safe, reliable, and a decent mpg.

Example if Chevy makes a Sports car, that is horribly unsafe, and gets 6mpg. And Ford, makes an equally impressive performing car that is much safer, and gets 15mpg.. Which am I going to choose.. Then competition factor kicks in. They will then build cars based off what the people want, not what the government body demands they build.

If the demand for 40mpg 150hp hybrids is truly there (without government tax credits, and loans to help build the facilities, etc) Then that is what will be built.

There are Billions of people on this planet. There is room for competition and all sizes and types of cars.

I've shared my thoughts... continue on combating each other ....

I agree with a lot of your points. Granted I haven't read the entire thread, but these guys are mainly arguing the supposed fact that the Government is the ones calling the shots in GM's boardrooms. Which I highly doubt because the Z28 wouldn't make it past stage 1, which is the, "This is a crazy Idea" stage. It would get laughed out of the room before it was ever a gleam in our eyes. So, yes, the Government is controlling GM, just as they are controlling everybody else like Ford and Chrysler. But these guys are taking it a bit too far IMO. But I make no claim to be an expert. I'm just a grunt here. GM is going to do fine, and I would more than willing buy their stock if I had some spare cash lying around.

And don't even start with the GM loyalty thing with me. I'm not exactly a good candidate for such a title.

Originally Posted by Berean

Feel free to shoot me a PM any time you like, and if it's easy to do, then I'm sure the moderators will refrain from taking sides in a future political discussion.


And no, I won't be buying any GM stock. As a taxpayer, and Camaro buyer, I've invested enough money in the company.

I think you and I invested a hell of a lot more in other companies during the "bailout era" that IMO, didn't deserve it. GM was nothing compared to them. They just made headlines more because of the News.


EDIT: I also love how the mods have kept this thread alive. Great site

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by jrc1122

To say the Government doesn't effect what cars that Chevy (or any other company for that matter) builds, Is to refuse to logically break down the specific roles of the EPA and NHTSA

A little known Bureaucracy called the EPA. They put stricter and stricter rules on emissions, and mpg. And that is from the past two administrations for sure.

Do you think Chevy doesn't realize that nearly every Camaro owner is going to eliminate the skip shift feature.. So why add it? Just for the sake of making the car more expensive.. Nope.. They are trying to meet government regulations for MPG and keep the customers from having to pay a special gas guzzler tax.

I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but seriously, people really need to open their eyes. There is TONS of government intrusion in the auto industry.

Some over site is probably a good thing, but I am a firm believer in the consumer. I think if the EPA and SAFETY ratings weren't mandated by the Government that ultimately the consumer would still demand it from the manufacturer - to the level they feel is necessary to keep them safe, reliable, and a decent mpg.

Example if Chevy makes a Sports car, that is horribly unsafe, and gets 6mpg. And Ford, makes an equally impressive performing car that is much safer, and gets 15mpg.. Which am I going to choose.. Then competition factor kicks in. They will then build cars based off what the people want, not what the government body demands they build.

If the demand for 40mpg 150hp hybrids is truly there (without government tax credits, and loans to help build the facilities, etc) Then that is what will be built.

There are Billions of people on this planet. There is room for competition and all sizes and types of cars.

I've shared my thoughts... continue on combating each other ....

Great post! But I believe the debate here is rather or not GM is under complete governmental control, and most here recognize the influence that regulations and legislation has on how a vehicle is made.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Great post! But I believe the debate here is rather or not GM is under complete governmental control,...

And I must request that that debate be taken into PMs if anyone feels so strongly about it.

[jrc1122]

yeah, I definitely took the conversation to a broader route, not just specifically about the bail out GM, and more about Governmental control of many of the automakers decisions due to strict, often time over bearing regulations.

So yes, the Government does control more than people tend to realize.