GM packing its bags in Oshawa

[montgomery]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Spoken like a true Maoist.  Don’t worry, we’re all friends here, well unless it becomes hateful, but then the moderator steps in.  

And yet another personal attack against me. It's either going to be allowed to continue or it needs to be corrected now.

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, montgomery said:

Be careful of the personal attacks against me! I''ll let those two go this time but I won't next time. I'm not pro-China or pro-Russia or pro-anything, nearly as much as I am anti-US, and with very good reasons which I've stated numerous times. 

You 'will' learn eventually to attack the message, not the messenger! 

"Anti-US" is kind of meaningless as an ideological position, because it's not a monolith, 50 states in the Union, what exactly are you anti to? The Supremacy Clause?

[montgomery]

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

"Anti-US" is kind of meaningless as an ideological position, because it's not a monolith, 50 states in the Union, what exactly are you anti to? The Supremacy Clause?

It should be crystal clear to all! I'm anti-US because that country is running roughshod over so many countries of the world, with the plan of comlete global domination. And the huge danger in it doing that is in the fact that we are a nuclear armed world and the other superpowers will not tolerate it.

Trump, the leader of that pariah nation, is an evil psychopath and psychos don't understand that they can't win all of the time. Read up on corporate psychopaths; I have and I know that they can't ever allow themselves to lose. You need to start paying attention to what he is and what he's trying to do Dougie. Stay away from your continuing personal attacks against me and maybe we can start to discuss the issue. Nuff said for now.

[Zeitgeist]

22 minutes ago, montgomery said:

And yet another personal attack against me. It's either going to be allowed to continue or it needs to be corrected now.

Okay I’ll tell you what I find concerning.  When you say “40 phoney wars of aggression” it sounds like a political slogan.  Geopolitics isn’t that simple.  The US has had reasons for its military actions, though it’s fair to question the reasons, motives and execution of those actions.  Is China not acting aggressively in the South China Sea and off the waters of the Koreas?  You’re right that China has not been involved in overseas war or invasions, but it had an evil One Child Policy and would imprison political opponents with dubious process.  We all remember the tanks at Tianenmen during the protests.  Granted, China has come a long way and I hope it becomes a truly open and free democracy.  Not so sure how close that is.  Also you mentioned BRIC nations, but Brazil just elected a fascist.  We’re in a world right now where some countries, including BRIC nations, feel they can have journalist critics of the government poisoned (Russia).  Canada spoke out against the Saudi murder and dismembering of Khashoggi.  We heard very little outcry or support from allies. Canada will try to remain a bulwark for human rights, but we’re a small country and need the support of other countries.  We have our own problems to fix with Indigenous peoples. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

Yeah, I wouldn't hold your breath on the Chinese and Russians standing up to the Americans with nuclear weapons, the Russians and Chinese are well aware that they are thoroughly outclassed by the US military and in the event of a nuclear conflagration the American counterforce would cripple their deterrents resulting in most of it never getting off the ground, the CONUS would take some hits, but the Union would not perish from this earth, while Eurasia would take the vast vast brunt of it. 

The thing about the Balance of Terror, is that its rather imbalanced in the Americans favour, as while the Russians and Chinese have the nukes, they don't have the global comprehensive early warning that the Americans do, so while the Americans can see them coming from a long ways off, the Russians are Chinese are actually vulnerable to a preemptive counterforce option.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

"Anti-US" is kind of meaningless as an ideological position, because it's not a monolith, 50 states in the Union, what exactly are you anti to? The Supremacy Clause?

It’s more that we just don’t see the US way as a better model and would not want to give up what we have and let Washington become our federal government.  The US and Britain remain close allies, but Trump’s dealings with Putin and the Saudis are troubling.  Trump may say that murder and corruption are just part of realpolitik and running a large country, but that is a problematic view and vision that won’t find many followers in tolerant and healthy democracies.  I understand that there is fear in the US and the world, but those fears need not be stoked.  Obama understood the importance of hope. 

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Yeah, I wouldn't hold your breath on the Chinese and Russians standing up to the Americans with nuclear weapons, the Russians and Chinese are well aware that they are thoroughly outclassed by the US military and in the event of a nuclear conflagration the American counterforce would cripple their deterrents resulting in most of it never getting off the ground, the CONUS would take some hits, but the Union would not perish from this earth, while Eurasia would take the vast vast brunt of it. 

 

Chinese rockets have horrible CEP...thus the mega-yields akin to the 1950s-60s. City busters and such. They need 5 megatons to compensate for landing a kilometer off target.

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Chinese rockets have horrible CEP...thus the mega-yields akin to the 1950s-60s. City busters and such. They need 5 megatons to compensate for landing a kilometer off target.

And a handful of those might get through in the wake of an American counterforce, dogs and moms would burn in a nuclear fire, but America loses a handful of population centers, then picks themselves up, dusts themselves off, and starts to rebuild immediately, while the PRC has ceased to exist for all intents and purposes in a hail of precisely targeted strikes against their entire government and military infrastructure.   I would submit, I don't think the Americans would actually target the Chinese population centers, for one thing, the American imperative would be to limit the radioactive  fallout plume, and for another, the Americans don't have to wipe the Chinese out as a people to take down the PRC and PLA.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[montgomery]

15 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Okay I’ll tell you what I find concerning.  When you say “40 phoney wars of aggression” it sounds like a political slogan.  Geopolitics isn’t that simple.  The US has had reasons for its military actions, though it’s fair to question the reasons, motives and execution of those actions.  Is China not acting aggressively in the South China Sea and off the waters of the Koreas?  You’re right that China has not been involved in overseas war or invasions, but it had an evil One Child Policy and would imprison political opponents with dubious process.  We all remember the tanks at Tianenmen during the protests.  Granted, China has come a long way and I hope it becomes a truly open and free democracy.  Not so sure how close that is.  Also you mentioned BRIC nations, but Brazil just elected a fascist.  We’re in a world right now where some countries, including BRIC nations, feel they can have journalist critics of the government poisoned (Russia).  Canada spoke out against the Saudi murder and dismembering of Khashoggi.  We heard very little outcry or support from allies. Canada will try to remain a bulwark for human rights, but we’re a small country and need the support of other countries.  We have our own problems to fix with Indigenous peoples. 

40 US phony wars of aggression! It needs to be repeated over and over again until it sinks into the hearts and minds of Americans. And I'm not the least bit interested in hearing any of your apologies for that country. They all pale completely as compared to the SLAUGHTER perped by the US since WW2. 

China's aggression in the South China Sea?? Tiannamen Square?? 

Are you serious? I'm talking about the slaughter of millions, approaching the crimes of the Nazis! Time to get real and wear the shoe if it fits.! That has nothing to do with China or Russia, that's all about the good ol u s of a. . 

[Dougie93]

In actual fact, the Chinese aren't even really in this game, their deterrent is really quite modest, only the Russians have the zombie Soviet nuclear horses to rollout against the Americans, but again, the Russian early warning system is also zombie Soviet, and is as a result actually junk, so the Americans could actually hit them without any warning at all.

[montgomery]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

In actual fact, the Chinese aren't even really in this game, their deterrent is really quite modest, only the Russians have the zombie Soviet nuclear horses to rollout against the Americans, but again, the Russian early warning system is also zombie Soviet, and is as a result actually junk, so the Americans could actually hit them without any warning at all.

That's the sort of mindset I really worry about Dougie. It's a not very well hidden notion that the US could win a nuclear war! You'll have to excuse me from pursuing this any further with you if you're going to talk like that.

Good grief folks, has Conservative mindset gone that far over the edge already?

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

In actual fact, the Chinese aren't even really in this game, their deterrent is really quite modest, only the Russians have the zombie Soviet nuclear horses to rollout against the Americans, but again, the Russian early warning system is also zombie Soviet, and is as a result actually junk, so the Americans could actually hit them without any warning at all.

I’m surprised you say that. Russia is producing its own version of Star Wars missile defence and China is going to have the largest world economy soon.  It doesn’t matter.  You just need enough time to get your missiles out of the ground and water to obliterate the opponents, which all of those powers can do.  The world only needs to be destroyed once.  We need to avoid any such attacks, which are existentially catastrophic for everyone. 

[montgomery]

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m surprised you say that. Russia is producing its own version of Star Wars missile defence and China is going to have the largest world economy soon.  It doesn’t matter.  You just need enough time to get your missiles out of the ground and water to obliterate the opponents, which all of those powers can do.  The world only needs to be destroyed once.  We need to avoid any such attacks, which are existentially catastrophic for everyone. 

Simply correct! And nearly sane person gets it! 

We sure don't need any Conservative madmen running around with the notion  the US can win a nuclear war! 

I sure  do hope the idea didn't come out of Scheer and his accomplices.

[Dougie93]

13 minutes ago, montgomery said:

That's the sort of mindset I really worry about Dougie. It's a not very well hidden notion that the US could win a nuclear war! You'll have to excuse me from pursuing this any further with you if you're going to talk like that.

Good grief folks, has Conservative mindset gone that far over the edge already?

Well, the Americans are not going to incite a nuclear war lightly, but if it comes down to a backs against the wall scenario and the Russians and/or Chinese are poised to strike, at the event horizon, the Americans will be forced to put them down with the counterforce option.  But it wouldn't be the end of the world,  the American counterforce would massively attrit the Russian/Chinese deterrents, chopping them down to a survivable impact.   Yes, the CONUS would take some hits, but not everything everywhere, thus, the Americans would still be able to render unto and rebuild in the wake, while the Russian and Chinese governments and military's would be obliterated.   Bad option for America, exponentially  worse option for the Russian and Chinese tyrants, as you can't enjoy the fruits of being a tyrant when you're dead.

[Dougie93]

The thing that really makes America exponentially more survivable than the Russians and Chinese, is that the Russian and Chinese regimes are entirely centralized, chop the heads off those regimes and demilitarize them by force, and they simply cease to exist, whereas America is an idea, can't kill an idea, go ahead and nuke Washington, big whoop, you'll never take a drink from the Mississippi, and the constitution and associated States in the Union simply  carries on without you.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

Now that the steel and aluminum tariffs are removed, GM can no longer lean on the excuse that plants must close to offset tariff-related losses.  GM’s sales are rising in the jurisdictions where it’s closing plants.  Consumers should boycott GM unless employment levels in these countries where its sales are thriving are maintained.  

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Now that the steel and aluminum tariffs are removed, GM can no longer lean on the excuse that plants must close to offset tariff-related losses.  GM’s sales are rising in the jurisdictions where it’s closing plants.  Consumers should boycott GM unless employment levels in these countries where its sales are thriving are maintained.  

 

Again, this is not how it works.   Plants have been closing in Ontario for decades due to factors completely unrelated to tariffs.

GM owes the workers nothing beyond what their union contracts require.   

Most of GM production is exported to the U.S. anyway, not consumed locally.

[Shady]

26 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Now that the steel and aluminum tariffs are removed, GM can no longer lean on the excuse that plants must close to offset tariff-related losses.  GM’s sales are rising in the jurisdictions where it’s closing plants.  Consumers should boycott GM unless employment levels in these countries where its sales are thriving are maintained.  

How is a boycott going to help GM workers in Ontario?  They’ll have less cars to make, meaning more layoffs and closings.  Brilliant strategy there.

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, Shady said:

How is a boycott going to help GM workers in Ontario?  They’ll have less cars to make, meaning more layoffs and closings.  Brilliant strategy there.

They can by Fords, Toyotas and other vehicles that haven’t curtailed local production despite rising sales.  Reduce GM’s market share through a boycott if government won’t protect the middle class.  Cutting well paying industrial jobs also means reducing the number of consumers who can afford vehicles.  

Edited May 18, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

26 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Again, this is not how it works.   Plants have been closing in Ontario for decades due to factors completely unrelated to tariffs.

GM owes the workers nothing beyond what their union contracts require.   

Most of GM production is exported to the U.S. anyway, not consumed locally.

Canada buys more autos than it produces.  

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

They can by Fords, Toyotas and other vehicles that haven’t curtailed local production despite rising sales.  Cut their market share if government won’t protect the middle class.  Cutting well paying industrial jobs also means reducing the number of consumers who can afford vehicles.  

 

Why would foreign automakers ever agree to such a scheme when 85% of Canadian production is exported to another nation ?

Do you really think that the local auto workers in Ontario (and their buying habits) are critical to corporate survival ?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada buys more autos than it produces.  

 

Which means that local consumption of GM production in Ontario is far less....so why are you so focused on local sales ?

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Why would foreign automakers ever agree to such a scheme when 85% of Canadian production is exported to another nation ?

Do you really think that the local auto workers in Ontario (and their buying habits) are critical to corporate survival ?

Auto sales in Canada are high and of value to the companies that sell into that market.  Same goes for the US.  Hey, I’m just telling you that without rules you will see much more of this.  I guess it doesn’t matter.  Robots can do the work  and most people can live in rooming houses, unable to afford vehicles and homes on low service job wages.  

Edited May 18, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Auto sales in Canada are high and of value to the companies that sell into that market.  Same goes for the US.  Hey, I’m just telling you that without rules you will see much more of this.  I guess it doesn’t matter.  Robots can do the work  and most people can live in rooming houses, unable to afford vehicles and homes on low service job wages.  

 

???   So now all auto sales in Canada should make GM beholden to a few cities in Ontario ?

Canada's auto sector has been collapsing for many years, mostly due to government policies and costs.

The U.S. is not responsible for Canada's middle class.

Why are you not asking these questions from a Canadian investment and venture capital perspective ?   Why does it have to be dependence on foreign corporations to address your concerns ?

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

???   So now all auto sales in Canada should make GM beholden to a few cities in Ontario ?

Canada's auto sector has been collapsing for many years, mostly due to government policies and costs.

The U.S. is not responsible for Canada's middle class.

Why are you not asking these questions from a Canadian investment and venture capital perspective ?   Why does it have to be dependence on foreign corporations to address your concerns ?

It’s an issue for all governments in advanced economies.  I have cited examples on both sides of the border.  Don’t make this a Canada versus US thing, as that’s a red herring.  Canada has a similar economy to the US.