Quote of the century of the week

From this article, malady try I shall piss into the wind since it seems like half my extended family works in the parasitical finance industry anyways. Posted here since even the quote was a bit too long for the meth-fueled megaphone-wielding-10-year-old-girl twitter machine.

GM’s failure after 101 years is an indictment of American management in general. It highlights the damage to our economy that results when finance becomes the tail that wags the economic dog.

Guess what Toyota and Honda do? No, clinic not finance; they actually make cars! Cars that the whole world wants to buy, instead of creating demand out of whole cloth for suburbanites to use 10 mpg trucks to hit the grocery store; demand that evaporates outside of the US and even inside the US as soon as gas gets expensive. Yeah, for a while you didn’t have to worry about competing against those two; but they found their way into the SUV market eventually, and in the meantime you got out of the market segments the rest of the world actually buys.
Not just GM; but our entire economy fell prey to the stupid idea that if you could sucker somebody into paying you to do something for a while, it had to be valuable work. Rebuttal: Ponzi schemes work for a while too.
At my current jorb in the military-industrial complex, I’m already more removed from making useful things than I like to be; but compared to most jobs in our ‘economy’, I’m practically still a farmer.

5 Replies to “Quote of the century of the week”

  1. I love my current job for that exact reason. We actually make a server, that goes in your data center.
    It’s the first time in my career that I’ve been able to hold something up and say, “This. This is what I make at work.”

  2. Back to the subject of cars. This blog is interesting (guy I used to work with), because it speaks to the flaws in the entire way car dealerships are run:
    How these young guys are realizing that you can make a lot more money on the financing for economy cars that people want to buy, rather than paying the carrying costs to have vehicles on your lot that have the profit margins you want to sell.
    GM was building the vehicles its dealer’s wanted to sell. Wrong audience.

  3. I have a wife and four children. We own a suburban and live in town (Crestview).
    Our vehicle only gets 16/19 mpg, and we put less than 10k miles on it per year. Maybe less than that.
    I don’t want to be reduced to a minivan or a station wagon or two vehicles.
    Is that so wrong?

  4. pel, the trick is that the SUV wouldn’t be as cheap or as attractive if it hadn’t been given preferential treatment in emissions, fuel economy, and safety regulation, to say nothing of the tax code.
    Would you be as enamored of your SUV if it cost $20,000 more than it does now because it had to meet those requirements, just like the minivan and station wagon did?

  5. I don’t think they’d add up to $20k.
    I’d be just as enamored, because the Suburban is the ultimate blend of blue-collar luxury, passenger toting, and cargo toting. I’m sorry, but the minivan and wagon do not compare.
    I could discuss the repeal of certain regulatory advantages to SUVs if I knew that the all-purpose use of Suburbans was respected and that they weren’t being shoehorned into a passenger-only category that imposes onerous requirements which don’t make sense for a large frame, cargo-toting vehicle like that.
    However, I suspect that most of the SUV dislike is driven by people who just hate big cars, no matter what their utility. Even if SUVs were made to obey the same requirements as a Ford Fiesta and cost exceptionally more than they do now, I don’t think that would be enough for the big-car haters. They’d find some reason to demand they be removed from the road and would seek a regulatory route to realize that goal.

Leave a Reply