Well, imagine that... ;) Shares tank as production plans from rival Toyota threaten to boot General Motors into second place.

December 20, 2005

DETROIT (Reuters) - Shares of General Motors Corp. fell to an 18-year low Tuesday after Toyota Motor Corp. unveiled production plans for 2006, increasing fears that GM will be toppled by its Japanese rival as the world's largest automaker.

Toyota said it plans to make a record 9.06 million cars in 2006, just shy of the 9.15 million cars and trucks that some analysts expect GM to build next year.

Shares of General Motors (down $0.85 to $20.20) slumped by 4.8 percent in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock fell more than 5 percent to $19.63 earlier in the day -- its lowest point since 1987, after being adjusted for its spin-off of Delphi Corp. in 1999.

Shares have plunged nearly 50 percent this year.

GM does not provide sales or production forecasts on an annual basis, but some analysts said the current trend points to GM's inevitable tumble to second place for the first time in 70 years.

"Toyota will probably be the largest producer in the world at the end of 2006," said Richard Hilgert, auto analyst at Fitch Ratings, citing GM's slumping sales of large sport utility vehicles in the fuel-conscious market.

Burnham Securities analyst David Healy expects GM to produce 9.15 million vehicles in 2006, and expects Toyota to surpass GM as the world's largest automaker in 2007.

Toyota's production increase of 10 percent comes at a time when GM is shrinking capacity by slashing 30,000 jobs and closing 12 facilities in North America.

The automaker has lost nearly $4 billion this year as it struggles with high health-care and commodities costs, loss of U.S. market share to foreign rivals and sinking sales of large SUVs, its long-time profit generators.

"Investors are reacting to the Toyota figures," Argus Research analyst Kevin Tynan said. "Although it shouldn't be any great surprise. ... We've been saying for a while that at the current pace, Toyota will surpass GM next year."

Tynan said at current gas prices the Japanese automaker would overtake GM by the end of 2006.

Tynan also said many investors may be cutting losses at the end of year to offset gains made in 2005.

To make matters worse at GM, a strike at bankrupt Delphi could shut down plants and force the automaker to burn through billions of dollars a week, analysts say.

GM is said to be considering offering Delphi workers buyout packages, which would add to the automaker's obligation of up to $12 billion to former employees who were sent to Delphi after the spin-off.

But analysts say they would rather see GM pay for buyouts instead of facing a strike.

As part of its broader restructuring efforts, GM also negotiated a deal with its union that would save it $1 billion a year in health-care costs.

Analysts have said the cost-cutting efforts are not enough to turn things around at the auto giant until it starts regaining market share.

GM has also said it plans to sell a controlling stake in its General Motors Acceptance Corp. finance arm to restore investment-grade rating to the unit. But analysts have said a sale is not imminent.

"GMAC is definitely not going to be sold in 2005. So there's certainly going to be no news headline pop into the rest of this year. That's another reason investors are selling."

One aspect of the Big 3 I've hesitated to raise in this Forum is the reliance of each of the Big 3 on US tax laws which justify creating large "tax losses" in some operating divisions in order to shield profit in other units. The big payers in the stock market are aware of this and factor such into their equations of "liquidation value" versus market value of the stock shares.

At this point, most of the big investors are looking real hard at ALL the automotive sector to determine if there is residual value or if all the real estate and operating equipment really have a negative value because of the cost to convert them to other use.

The reason GM even considers selling GMAC is because GM is being pressured by the investors who will see it through bankruptcy, Those investors need their multiples buoyed up to use the shares as collateral on other deals. As junk rated securities, the shares can't be used as collateral on 3rd party deals. By spinning off GMAC, GM will make some lucky players instant BILLIONAIRES! You have to know that the "smart money" has been buying these shares up as they fell lower and lower as average investors lose courage and dump the shares rather than ride them into the toilet.

It's because they only bully the manufacturers
COMMENTARY
It could be all over for General Motors

THE famous Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, “The responsibility for a martial host of a million lies in one man. He is the trigger of its spirit.” The best historical example is probably the Battle of Issus, in which Alexander the Great faced an enormous army of Persians.

Alexander knew, however, that he didn’t have to defeat all the Persians to win; he could win by defeating only one, as long as that one was the enemy king. He therefore orchestrated a cavalry charge against King Darius who lost his nerve, turned his chariot, and fled from the battle, thus telling his entire army that he thought the day was lost.

When any general — or the chief executive officer of a modern corporation — shows that he does not know how to handle a crisis, the organization’s morale collapses quickly. Any insider or even outsider with training in organizational psychology, meanwhile, knows that it is all over for the military or business entity in question.

I first saw this phenomenon at IBM during the early 1990s, when its CEO blamed the company’s problems on “too many employees standing around the water coolers.” Whether true or not, this was hardly the root cause of the company’s declining performance and this statement painted a devastating picture of a leader who simply did not know what to do.

The statements and actions of General Motors’ executives are now painting an equally bleak picture. CEO Rick Wagoner’s “A Portrait of My Industry” (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 6) shows that the company lacks the proactive leadership it needs to survive.

Wagoner praises the improved quality of GM vehicles, for which his company certainly deserves credit. Then, however, he complains about the “spiraling cost of health care in the United States” that adds $1,525 to the cost of every GM car and truck. Getting the United Auto Workers to agree to absorb more of the health care costs and then rewarding their cooperation with plant closings and 30,000 job cuts, however, does nothing to address the underlying problem: poor quality health care that wastes 30 to 60 cents of every health care dollar.

To put this waste in perspective, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care in 2005, of which $1.5 to $3 billion was squandered on poor quality. Dividing this among 565 million outstanding shares translates to $2.65 to $5.30 per share, which is a lot for a stock that now trades in the low $20s. Another way to look at it is that each GM customer paid $450 to $900 for medical mistakes and inefficiencies.

The fact that “A Portrait of My Industry” merely complains about the health care costs instead of offering a solution is especially distressing because GM’s own industry association, the Automotive Industry Action Group, is ready to spoon-feed the company an off-the-shelf solution. The AIAG has worked with the American Society for Quality to develop a health care-specific version of the internationally-recognized ISO 9000 quality system standard.

Implementation of ISO 9000 by GM’s health providers would reduce waste, inefficiencies, and medical mistakes that harm or even kill GM’s employees and retirees. (Roland E. Moore, director of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Plains Township described some readily available medical quality assurance techniques, all of which are consistent with ISO 9000, in his letter of Nov. 13.)

Although GM already compels its part suppliers to meet the similar ISO/TS 16949 quality standard, it has yet to use its enormous purchasing power to demand similar performance from its health care suppliers. This lack of decisive and constructive action suggests very strongly that this company will not be around at the end of this decade.


Isn't ISO 9001 supposed to be for all industries!!!

I recall visiting the issue of spiraling health care costs and concurrent increases in all kinds of insurance (from product and personal liability to health insurance) at some time in the past.

Then, as now, I decried the general attitude of helplessness to control costs by attributing all woes to "the other guy."

Insurance companies claimed that spiraling lawsuit awards increased their costs, but ignored the disastrous investments they had made in securities, including some dot com investments. The insurance company solution to spiraling lawsuit awards (not backed up by ANY statistical study to prove their case) was to limit the awards to the plaintiffs who had been injured, rather than get to the root cause of lawsuits - major gaps in the quality of service and goods delivered by the policy holders.

Similarly, health care costs are predicated on high insurance costs for doctors and other healthcare providers. Few seem to focus on the root cause and employ Corrective Action and Preventive Action to lower the number and severity of incidents resulting in lawsuits.

Why have we as a profession failed to make an impact on corporate America that Quality really saves money, not costs money? What can WE do, starting today, to make EVERYONE more aware of the concept of problem solving to get to and eliminate the root cause of a problem?

Wes,
I am ignorant of the situation in the US but in Israel we have hospitals that are ISO9001 registered.Auditors from hospitals won the second and third prizes in a national auditor competition
My local hospital has an annual quality circle improvement competition with a festive evening for prize giving and the local quality managers organisation volunteer help.

Wes,
I am ignorant of the situation in the US but in Israel we have hospitals that are ISO9001 registered.Auditors from hospitals won the second and third prizes in a national auditor competition
My local hospital has an annual quality circle improvement competition with a festive evening for prize giving and the local quality managers organisation volunteer help.
Even registration to ISO 9001:2000 does not guarantee an efficient operation, nor does it guarantee quality of goods or services. An organization may have good intentions when seeking registration, but experience has shown the road to "Hades" is paved with good intentions.

As a long-time Demingite, I am very leery of competitions and contests, in addition to slogans and individual awards for doing what one was supposed to do as a normal part of one's job.

You may have caught some of my rants in the ASQ Forums where I decry the mindless activity of some short-sighted folks attempting to institute Lean techniques in their organizations.

Notably, I mark as ridiculous most 5 S programs which make a big deal out of normal neatness and housekeeping as if it were some new discovery and where organizations hand out awards simply because someone picked up trash to make a clear path to perform work.

More problematic, but still an occasion for more extraneous activity than focused, effective activity is "kaizen" as practiced by many organizations. I won't continue the rant here, perhaps in another thread at another time.

My main point is that isolated examples of "some" organizations performing quality work do not constitute a trend. (after all, even a stopped analog clock is right twice a day!)

I find this very interesting. Here at the Cove we have anecdotal evidence of automotive suppliers being beaten about the head and shoulders to induce lower prices, yet the health care suppliers, supposedly largely responsible for GM's problems, are left alone? This fails the sniff test.

The Five Rings reference earlier is prophetic.

Why have we as a profession failed to make an impact on corporate America that Quality really saves money, not costs money? What can WE do, starting today, to make EVERYONE more aware of the concept of problem solving to get to and eliminate the root cause of a problem?

That’s simple. Because the American way is based on piracy.

Check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819596/103-4818105-1671802?v=glance&n=283155
Engrained in Americas subconscious, is this steal, and retire young to a tropical island, name yourself king, and live happily ever after attitude. No remorse – I got mine, to he11 with you. Look good for the quarterly report, cook the books if you have to. Nevermind about next year, I’ll have sold 1000000 shares by then, and it will not be my problem.

Greed – As I have said before.

This fails the sniff test.

I smell somthing just fine!

Did you see the movie "A Beautiful Mind"?

It’s the story of John Forbes Nash Jr. A mathematician who proved un-checked capitalism leads to economic collapse. We are witnessing (Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, GM) his equations summing to zero – What is the debate?

I regard Nash as a hero – He too is nutz :bonk:

BTW, that odor is the rotting flesh of capitalism - And for sure, it stinks.

Reason for edit: Fixed Quote

That’s simple. Because the American way is based on piracy.

Clarification, although none seems needed – The original statements unfortunately killed the discussion: Don’t get me wrong, I’m a 7th generation American, democracy and capitalism is the way to go; but not without social (socially minded) controls.

16 men on a dead man’s chest. Yo Ho Ho, and a bottle of rum.

Ordinary folks day dream about singing around a cast of rum and a treasure chest. We buy lottery tickets and fantasize about telling the boss off before heading to the airport, and being featured on lifestyles of the rich and famous. This is the manifestation of the subconscious link to our pirate origins [1]. This is not the case in the board rooms of corporate America. We all know the 80/20 rule – Do the math. What happens when the 20, who have the 80, cash out? What happens to all this now idle money? How many times can an economy sustain a hit like this? While you and I romanticize the pirates life, and getting fat on our spoils; this possibility is all too real in the rarified air of our corporate officers. No, the pirate’s code isn’t a subconscious influence for the elite; it’s the centerpiece of the board room table – It’s carved in the ivory white marble of their great halls [2].

[1] The book I gave a link to had a couple startling bit’s of history, that seem to have fallen from the pages of the text books we’re given in high school and collage. Among them: When Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, we’ve been told the French navy cut off his escape, and support. Hurray for the French, right? In point of fact, the British fleet was not there at all. Where were they? They were engaged in a devastating battle against a pirate controlled port in the Caribbean. Who do you think was giving us rebels’ supplies to fight the British Empire? Smugglers and Pirates, that’s who. We Americans owe our freedom to pirates, not the French nave. Are you now beginning to see where our generational romantic idealism of pirates comes from?

[2] As you can see from the book’s title, the book exposes secret societies that exist in America. Prominently featured in the book are those “Fraternity” type organizations in our Ivy League schools. I’m sure you all know about them, and probably know at least one of their members personally. This, in fact, is the reason I read the book in the first place. A childhood friend went to Yale, and became a member of one of these secret societies. I said to him : “Oh, you mean it’s like a fraternity?” He said: “Oh no, it’s much more than that”, but would not elaborate. So I read this book to satisfy a question I’ve carried for more than 20 years. Anyway - How many of our corporate officers are graduates of Yale, Princeton, Duke, Harvard, Stanford and the like? And how many of them are members of these elite organizations? No joke, folks – The “pirates’ code”, or some part there of, is literally carved on their “Frat-House” walls (I mean offence to their members with the term – I’m just trying to relate an image that we all understand.). Which is not as strange as it seems, the founders of these organizations, after all were (are) pirates.

Comments?

We Americans owe our freedom to pirates, not the French nave.

That's a statement which represents either gross exaggeration or a serious disconnection from reality. The facts are that French naval forces under de Grasse engaged British forces (19 ships, iirc) under Graves in Chesapeake Bay in September of 1781. The French victory sealed Cornwallis's only avenue of escape, and greatly facilitated the decision to surrender.

Quote: (Originally Posted by bmccabe) We Americans owe our freedom to pirates, not the French nave.
That's a statement which represents either gross exaggeration or a serious disconnection from reality. The facts are that French naval forces under de Grasse engaged British forces (19 ships, iirc) under Graves in Chesapeake Bay in September of 1781. The French victory sealed Cornwallis's only avenue of escape, and greatly facilitated the decision to surrender.
You two guys crack me up.
My family has lived in the USA for 300 years! The second generation in North America fought in the Revolutionary War. We Americans do not owe our freedom to pirates or the french.
Now let's get back to the subject.
GM is still not getting the punishment they deserve. GM has not learned it's lesson. The management has went into the typical grab the money and run mode.

Now let's get back to the subject.

Good idea :)

Quote: (Originally Posted by bmccabe) We Americans owe our freedom to pirates, not the French nave.

You two guys crack me up.
My family has lived in the USA for 300 years! The second generation in North America fought in the Revolutionary War. We Americans do not owe our freedom to pirates or the french.


300 years and still in Cleveland?:tg:

Interesting thread.

I have often railed about the flawed Wall Street (neon god) method to our economic greatness. My message has been that its premise invites distortion of strategy, promotes limited vision, and beckons to baser instincts like greed and pride.

The secret societies may be, in my view, an interesting indicator but not root cause. Many otherwise good schools are only recently including ethics classes in their curricula. I have read that while the addition of an ethics class is of course a good thing, it is just a class and not a focus; it does not promote the idea that high ethics should be a part of the business culture.

Add to this a long-term sense of detachment to quality subjects that are pretty basic to small business--let's take customer satisfaction as an example. A year or so ago, I noted with interest an announcement for Harvard Business School's Breakthrough Customer Satisfaction summer seminar. Imagine, a class in customer satisfaction! :rolleyes: But again, it is just a class; at the time, it was just an interest class.

For the masses of highly placed (Ivy League or not) executives the shareholder's interest is what counts. It's a culture long in the making, as is the propensity to fail to see the forest for the trees.

The tendency to misfocus is commented upon in an editorial review of American Dynasty: Most disturbing is the way he describes the family's enormously circumscribed view of economics. Essentially, the family knows nothing of business or economics outside the narrow purview of investment (even their connections with oil and energy has been on the investment side). They have little knowledge or contact with industry or small business or, really, any aspect of the economy outside of investing. Therefore, the family assumption is that if you take care of investors, you have taken care of the only thing in an economy that matters. If investors are doing well, you needn't pay direct attention to any other facet of the economy, like jobs or manufacturing capacity. Although many economists are deeply concerned about the current state of the U.S. economy (with gigantic deficits, enormous debt to nations like China, and continued employment difficulties), from the narrow view of the Bushes, things are good because they have taken care of the investment class.

That the majority of shareholder holdings are owned by the minority wealthy is one leg of the causal stool; that "rising stars" should desire to enter that aristocracy is another leg; citizen stoic acceptance and apathy is another leg.

About health care flaws and quality systems:

My look into health care as an examiner for this state's version of Baldrige revealed some of the depth to which they often already exersize diligence in responsive and proactive systems. The industry is heavily regulated, so systems are already in place out of need.

One problem I noted is that the highly trained leaders in these health care organizations still lack, as so many business leaders do, the ability to critically and objectively analyze data or even construct adequate models for continuous improvement. They just don't have the training and do not ask for those who do (notably, QA managers are RNs by requisite and not necessarily exposed to such methods as 5-W or Cause-and-Effect) when designing their quality systems.

I'll give an example in a good-hearted attempt to reduce back injuries. The organization noted the injury rate and made a plan to address it. They had everyone trained in safe lifting techniques and measured results after six months. There was no change. At that point they looked more closely at the problem and noted environmental problems like cluttered surroundings in patients' homes that made safe lifting difficult. They approached that problem and improved their injury numbers, but they lost six months and all the costs associated with the injury rates in that time.

So I'll now note a fourth leg for that stool. People are not being taught critical thinking as far as I can see; quality methods are not being taught from an early age, as would probably be needed to establish the pragmatic sense required for widespread embrace when these folks are in positions of power.

So, I maintain it's a problem long in the making and very complex. Imagine the fishbone diagram we'd need to diagnose it and apply corrective measures... it's not likely to happen because most people look to others for blame. Indeed, since so many have a part of the cause I understand why it is so easy to overlook one's own contribution to it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about but I think I agree.
Now let's get back to the subject once again.
GM is a mess that my taxes are going to end up cleaning!
The government loves to waist money on big corporations at the tax payers expense. This will be another good example. Remember, you heard it here first.

Jennifer, thank you for your thoughts on the subject, I find them, and this subject interesting too.

If I’ve understood you, you feel there are many contributions, and sub contributions to the demise of this industry titan. Yea, I concede, there are; but like all good engineers do, perhaps we’ve over thought the matter. With respect to your stool and fishbone analysis, the engineer in me looks at our economy like a building, or structure. The pillars must be well founded on stone.

Unfortunately, they are set in ethical apathy (to paraphrase your statements). Or more simply greed is the root cause of GM’s demise. Not just the greed of their corporate officers, but the greed of entire industries. The Auto, oil, medical, and insurance all have amassed fortunes rivaling that of most nations. And they all have taken their bite of the pie.

I was wondering, Jennifer, what are your thought on “Nashsonian” economics? Have I connected the dots for the cove readers? Here we have a mathematical genus who defended a PHd dissertation which warns us about unbridled capitalism. 30 years later, the “neon god”s (as Jennifer call them) reluctantly award the same work with a Nobel prize in economics. Hummm! PHd + Nobel prize = We’d better take this more seriously.

Maybe you all think me a fool, maybe a carrion crow; but I see a pattern here. GM joins a list of fallen giants that by any view should be cash cows for a millennia. What’s the root cause of GM’s demise? It doesn’t look that difficult a problem from where I sit. TedCambron said “GM’s in a grab the money and run mode – AYE MATIE! That be our next portage! ARRRR! :lol:

Merry Christmas, Cove dwellers - see ya next Tuesday.

Maybe GM is just lead by blind, stubborn, arrogance.

Maybe GM is just lead by blind, stubborn, arrogance.Perhaps, but instead I think that label could more accurately be pasted on the likes of Bernie Ebbers, Michael Milken, Samuel Waskal et. al.. I'm not alone in noting the problem is many-faceted:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5086/lessons_from_enron_and_the_other_corporate_scoundrels.html

I think most CEOs really do want to leave a legacy of success, not to strip mine their industries. But the culture has been built, piece by piece over the last 30 or so years. An entire generation of highly placed leadership now apparently thinks shareholder value is true value. They fail to see all the steps to getting there and keeping themselves there; for them, diversifying means things like getting into consumer credit cards. It was appealing because so much of the work is done by computer, but the market's saturated now and credit holders are tapped out so that "strategy" isn't really robust.

It's been mentioned that greed is the most essential motivator. I rather agree with that, but I want to add pride because it's an enormous influence among such a competetive group as CEOs. A sense of accomplishment requires more and more as they jockey for newsprint space and renown in business schools. A tangible measure of accomplishment is pay and perks. These super-achievers honestly believe they are worth 600 +/- times the compensation of their average workers.

The Wall Street is a very handy vehicle for them, and the citizenry has gradually been brought onboard since the 401K was born.

I do not know what Nashonian Economics are. I did a Google search and came up empty.

I do not know what Nashonian Economics are. I did a Google search and came up empty.



Perhaps John F. Nash, Jr. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Nash+economics&btnG=Google+Search)

Perhaps John F. Nash, Jr. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Nash+economics&btnG=Google+Search)Thank you! That was interesting.

I do sort of agree the present day scenario looks like the zero-sum equilibrium of noncooperative games; that seems to be playing out in both business and labor markets.

Barbara Ehrenreich (author of Nickel and Dimed, and Bait and Switch) would probably agree. Here's a piece she wrote on those undeserving seniors and their sense of entitlement. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_2_63/ai_53706042

It's worth considering here because if GM dumps its penion plan along with all those other bankrupt companies, will the U.S. retirement insurance be able to maintain the load? If not, and they manage to do away with Social Security, what will the old people do to survive? The generations will move in with each other again, which I have said before is not a bad thing but not everyone has that option. They will need to get creative. Retirement communes, perhaps.

That's not Rick Wagoner's problem, of course. For him to look successful as a CEO he figures he has no choice but to shed the weight of retiree health and pension plans. His campaign to convince the public is an interesting political-looking endeavor. If no one squawks when he finally gets the job done, he'll figure it is because he successfully bent the public's will; but truth is, people are just not willing to make the necessary noise or fuss. Perhaps they believe it would be of no use.

A sense of accomplishment requires more and more as they jockey for newsprint space and renown in business schools. A tangible measure of accomplishment is pay and perks.
Your talking about one out of every thousand.
These super-achievers honestly believe they are worth 600 +/- times the compensation of their average workers.
Now you're talking about all of them.

I applaude you Jennifer :applause:

Here’s a dollar for the juke-box, some body cue up Pink Floyd.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/27/enron.causey.ap/index.html

Causey is the 16th Enron officer to turn states evidence.
Conspiracy???
This word doesn’t fit – It implies secrecy, and covert activities.

Are you sure this problem is isolated to a few corporations, and individuals?

So much information is available – Never mind that – You all are statisticians, I have a null hypothesis for you to test.

Ho1 – Is it SOP in big business to “strip mine” their company, industry, and country of money? You can farm your own data from the AP wire. Let's see that trend line.

Here’s a dollar for the juke-box, some body cue up Pink Floyd.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/27/enron.causey.ap/index.html

Causey is the 16th Enron officer to turn states evidence.
Conspiracy???
This word doesn’t fit – It implies secrecy, and covert activities.

Are you sure this problem is isolated to a few corporations, and individuals?

So much information is available – Never mind that – You all are statisticians, I have a null hypothesis for you to test.

Ho1 – Is it SOP in big business to “strip mine” their company, industry, and country of money? You can farm your own data from the AP wire. Let's see that trend line.
Conspiracies don't limit the number of "insiders" - only that there is an "us versus them" mentality. Many companies that have taboos against speaking to outsiders technically rope everyone into the conspiracy when they effectively hide the truth of wrongdoing from the people who are harmed.

Examples you might not have thought about as big conspiracies (some get prosecuted and often prosecutors only go after top folks rather than all conspirators, but they frequently get plea agreements from low-level folks to get at top dogs, ala Enron):

Taboo against disclosing pay amount - some people get paid less than the job should pay.
Taboo against telling customers about eliminating quality inspections as "too expensive" (recent case on titanium tubing for aerospace)
Taboo against hiring various ethnicities or other minorities - everybody is pretty much clued in when they look around and see only folks who look like them working alongside them
Taboo against disclosing that company hires illegal immigrants (no work permits or visas) at below-market wage (PLUS not paying social security taxes or health care benefits)

Capitalism is destined to fail due to its bases in profit motivation. This profit motivation creates an insatiable desire for wealth in which individuals compete for resources. This competition leads to winners and loser the problem is that not all men are created equal. The majority of the wealthy did not rise from the huddled masses they were born into wealth. In competing the wealthy begin with greater capital and economic resources such as Ivy League colleges and secret societies that are designed to control the masses.

This greed for generations was protected by Adam Smith’s economic principle of the “invisible hand” holding that the greatest benefit to a society is brought about by individuals acting freely in a competitive marketplace in the pursuit of their own self-interest. The problem is in Smith’s era people were raised with self interest that included a healthy dose of religion, morality, humility and decency. These character traits are becoming extinct in the Homer Simpson/South Park Generation.

As our population continues to grow wealth is becoming more condensed into fewer hands. Rome fell, fascism fell, communism is failing and so will capitalism. It is a destiny that cannot be prevented.

One of great paper on this is Greed by Julian Edney
http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm

So why did I mention this at all I am frustrated at the loss of tradition that was created by network greed. The loss of Monday Night Football! ABC has stated that there was no economic benefit to keeping the program. I watched this program with my Dad as a child mostly falling asleep before the half with my mother upset that I had been allowed to stay up so late. I have spent many a Monday Night reliving that with each of my sons and it will be a shame that I will not be able to share my beloved Patriots with my grandchildren on a Monday Night game all due to corporate greed.

Sure, Wes, there are lots of omission type infractions all around us.
The conspiracy I was speaking about is, ...to commit fraud. ...Money laundering. ...embezzlement, and the like.

And my question (null hypothesis) is this (as a business practice) common or isolated.
Some additional sources of data to consider is tax law, and trade practices. Are laws changing to promote, or discourage "strip mining".

Capitalism is destined to fail due to its bases in profit motivation. This profit motivation creates an insatiable desire for wealth in which individuals compete for resources. This competition leads to winners and loser the problem is that not all men are created equal. The majority of the wealthy did not rise from the huddled masses they were born into wealth. In competing the wealthy begin with greater capital and economic resources such as Ivy League colleges and secret societies that are designed to control the masses.

This greed for generations was protected by Adam Smith’s economic principle of the “invisible hand” holding that the greatest benefit to a society is brought about by individuals acting freely in a competitive marketplace in the pursuit of their own self-interest. The problem is in Smith’s era people were raised with self interest that included a healthy dose of religion, morality, humility and decency. These character traits are becoming extinct in the Homer Simpson/South Park Generation.

As our population continues to grow wealth is becoming more condensed into fewer hands. Rome fell, fascism fell, communism is failing and so will capitalism. It is a destiny that cannot be prevented.

One of great paper on this is Greed by Julian Edney
http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm

So why did I mention this at all I am frustrated at the loss of tradition that was created by network greed. The loss of Monday Night Football! ABC has stated that there was no economic benefit to keeping the program. I watched this program with my Dad as a child mostly falling asleep before the half with my mother upset that I had been allowed to stay up so late. I have spent many a Monday Night reliving that with each of my sons and it will be a shame that I will not be able to share my beloved Patriots with my grandchildren on a Monday Night game all due to corporate greed.Simple question:
How many of the products did you buy from the sponsors of Monday night football? If the sponsors are NOT making enough sales, they won't pay enough money to the network for the network to pay to the NFL to pay to the owners and players who don't get enough money from the fans who come to watch the games in person.

The whole thing is kind of like politics - you really don't have a right to complain unless you are part of the process by voting. In the case of MNF on ABC, it means voting with your pocketbook. If you have been buying the products, now would be a good time to mount a boycott of those products and write to the sponsors and tell them you were loyal to them and they had a duty to be loyal to you and to negotiate better with the network AND the NFL and the owners/players.

Forty years ago, Ann Landers, the advice columnist, wrote, "No one can take advantage of you without your permission." Good advice, even today!

Do not go meekly into Monday night!

HO2 - Changing networks does not increase sales of sponsor products.

The AFC got a better deal, that’s all. More margin – Greed again.

Sure, Wes, there are lots of omission type infractions all around us.
The conspiracy I was speaking about is, ...to commit fraud. ...Money laundering. ...embezzlement, and the like.

And my question (null hypothesis) is this (as a business practice) common or isolated.
Some additional sources of data to consider is tax law, and trade practices. Are laws changing to promote, or discourage "strip mining".
At my investment bank, I had a big office with windows on two walls and seating area for guests or brief conferences with an oriental carpet on the floor. Of all the mementos strewn around the office, I treasured most a little hand-made plaque I received from a fraternity brother upon my elevation to executive vp:
"He who takes what isn't his'n
Must give it back or go to prison"

If it was true 30 years ago, it should still be true today.

Simple question:
How many of the products did you buy from the sponsors of Monday night football? If the sponsors are NOT making enough sales, they won't pay enough money to the network for the network to pay to the NFL to pay to the owners and players who don't get enough money from the fans who come to watch the games in person.

The whole thing is kind of like politics - you really don't have a right to complain unless you are part of the process by voting. In the case of MNF on ABC, it means voting with your pocketbook. If you have been buying the products, now would be a good time to mount a boycott of those products and write to the sponsors and tell them you were loyal to them and they had a duty to be loyal to you and to negotiate better with the network AND the NFL and the owners/players.

Forty years ago, Ann Landers, the advice columnist, wrote, "No one can take advantage of you without your permission." Good advice, even today!

Do not go meekly into Monday night!

Being that I live outside St Louis I have been a contributor to the Busch family for a number of years. Boycotting their product will be difficult. Funny you say that their are few commercials I can remeber from any of the numerous football games I have watched over the last 30 years.

Being that I live outside St Louis I have been a contributor to the Busch family for a number of years. ....

Not to be confused with a Bush supporter :lmao: Hat's off, we're in the presents of a true patriot.

:beerdive: ALEWENCH! Another cast for my friend!

Capitalism is destined to fail due to its bases in profit motivation. This profit motivation creates an insatiable desire for wealth in which individuals compete for resources. This competition leads to winners and loser the problem is that not all men are created equal. The majority of the wealthy did not rise from the huddled masses they were born into wealth. In competing the wealthy begin with greater capital and economic resources such as Ivy League colleges and secret societies that are designed to control the masses....Good points although I could compare these attributes with behavior in other systems like Feudalism, and even with Socialism and Communism (which I actually think doesn't officially exist because, like in Orwell's Animal Farm, human nature isn't well suited to equality.) because inevitably a priviledged sect develops that is generally perpetuated among families and close associates.

An interesting exception is in societies like Shakers, among whom there is more fiscal and professional egalitarianism than any other system I can think of. True, they aren't countries and this particular group isn't flourishing because they don't procreate. So for societies, that won't work.

Great meltdowns of old like Great Peasants Revolt in 1381 (combined with Black Plague) and The Great Depression resulted in establishing some changes in their frail economic systems. Checks in our system, such as separation of funds in industries like insurance, banking and investment finance are now being dissolved amid a sense of comfort: "It won't be a problem," and that rewards (like shareholder value for those not personally seeking gain) are too great for policy makers and influencers to ignore.

Unless we have a spiritual revival in which ethical behavior is established intrinsically, we will eventually require extrinsic measures like more industry regulation. It is starting to happen, and it's quite important to prosecute the most devastating abusers to show laws against investor fraud will be enforced.

But human nature, like physics, results in inertia without sufficient force to move an object. There's still a struggle between reform seekers and the status quo faithful and IMHO we'll have to see a good deal more deterioration before matters are reversed and the work force is again viewed as an asset.

Being that I live outside St Louis I have been a contributor to the Busch family for a number of years. Boycotting their product will be difficult. Funny you say that their are few commercials I can remeber from any of the numerous football games I have watched over the last 30 years.

MNF isn't going away, it's just moving to ESPN, which is owned by ABC. The number of US households with cable service has increased to the point where ABC won't suffer loss of revenue by moving it, and might make more money by freeing up the time on ABC for more salacious drivel or mindless sitcoms.

Did you know that GM is spending more on pensions than steel?

Did you know that GM is spending more on pensions than steel?
So what! GM gets no sympathy from me.
My wife was taking a prescription drug that retailed for about $12 per capsule,
and the cost of the constituents was less that $0.10 / 100.

Why can’t a corporation take some of this obscene profit, invest it, and dribble out a tiny fraction to the people who made it for them?
Your tax dollars provide a pension for our armies; if this is just, corporations must be made accountable for the same – Or tax the p1$$ out of these employers (income only), to compensate the cost to the tax payers for the long term care of their employees.

Did you know that GM is spending more on pensions than steel?1. Who gets the biggest pension(s), I wonder...
2. Not much steel in cars any more.

Did you know that GM is spending more on pensions than steel?Since cars have so many outsourced parts now, how much of a car's steel actually comes from GM? I suspect this is a delicately selected metric to make the cost pressures look as extreme as possible.

I'd bet you are correct.

You know the saying. Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure.
Looks like more “Stealth Economics” to me.

You know the saying. Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure.
Looks like more “Stealth Economics” to me.

Regardless of who is counting, weighing and timing everything in sight, they all have vested interests in proving their points. Sometimes they are liars who figure. Often they are simply humanitarians blinded by their own beliefs. Occasionally, they are actually right.

Oops... Now it's at a 20 year low... DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp.'s shares touched their lowest price in more than 20 years on Thursday, in keeping with the rough road the world's largest automaker has traveled in 2005 and uncertainty about the future.

An expected weak end to GM's U.S. sales year, a possible change in pension accounting that could erase most shareholder equity and investors taking their losses in the stock to offset gains in other investments depressed GM shares on Thursday, analysts said.

GM shares slipped as low as $18.33 and were still off 19 cents at $18.42 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

"We have today and tomorrow as the last trading sessions of the year. With the stock being down so far, you would be looking at a little bit of tax selling to harvest those capital losses to offset gains in other areas," Argus Research analyst Kevin Tynan said.

"I wouldn't say it's any one issue or any one news item. It's a combination of what's being going on ... with the timing of having two days left," he added, also referring to an expected weak U.S. sales report for December next week and the possible hit from a change in U.S. pension accounting rules.

Other analysts had similar reactions to the share decline.

"It's tax loss selling. I haven't heard of anything else," said Tim Ghriskey, chief investment officer of Solaris Asset Management, who does not own any auto stocks but follows them closely.

So far this year, GM shares have fallen almost 54 percent, making the stock one of the worst performers in the Standard & Poor's 500 index .SPX>.

Reflecting the tough year for the U.S. auto sector, the list of 2005 underperformers also includes Ford Motor Co. and Dana Corp.. On Thursday, Ford was off 9 cents, or 1.1 percent, at $7.75, while Dana was up 5 cents at $7.04.

GM's rough year is also expected to be reflected in weak U.S. auto sales for December, said analysts, some of whom expect the automaker to post monthly declines of 8 percent or more from last year.

Another reason for concern is GM's possible exposure if next year the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which sets U.S. accounting rules, requires companies to show a liability from pensions instead of a net asset. Such a move could wipe out GM's shareholder equity, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

FASB voted earlier this year to undertake a project to make companies' pension information "more useful and transparent." The first phase of the project would put full pension liabilities on corporate balance sheets, possibly by the end of next year.

The proposed changes would likely affect auto and steel companies' shareholder equity the most, said Dan Noll, Director of Accounting Standards for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, but the changes, which would also require recognition of retiree health care benefits, could have a big effect on all companies' balance sheets.

"The information is already there in the financial statements and notes, but now moving it on the balance sheet, one has to wonder if investors will get more jittery," Noll said.

The insider financials on yahoo show GM execs dumping. If they had any faith, or glancing interest in saving their company, they'd be buying: Right? Maybe GM will accept bids from Toyota? I’m sure they could make US auto manufacturing profitable. (Where did I put that English/Japanese dictionary?)

Since cars have so many outsourced parts now, how much of a car's steel actually comes from GM? I suspect this is a delicately selected metric to make the cost pressures look as extreme as possible.
GM is one of the top three buyers of steel in the world.
Now what were you saying?:caution:

GM is one of the top three buyers of steel in the world.
Now what were you saying?:caution:Hmmm, I was not aware of that.

Who are the others in the top five?

The insider financials on yahoo show GM execs dumping. If they had any faith, or glancing interest in saving their company, they'd be buying: Right? Maybe GM will accept bids from Toyota? I’m sure they could make US auto manufacturing profitable. (Where did I put that English/Japanese dictionary?)
Of course they are! Would you expect anything different. They would make it not possible for anybody else to sell stock if they could and get away with it but I guess Enron recked that for them. I guarantee that after dumping their stock they are working on securing any bonus that may come to them. They will be spending more time on that than anything else. Isn't it wonderful.
This type of behavior is very common and it never ceases to amaze me that people hire executives who were involved with a company's down turn. Oh, but it's not their fault. Right?:thanx:

Of course they are! Would you expect anything different. They would make it not possible for anybody else to sell stock if they could and get away with it but I guess Enron recked that for them. I guarantee that after dumping their stock they are working on securing any bonus that may come to them. They will be spending more time on that than anything else. Isn't it wonderful.
This type of behavior is very common and it never ceases to amaze me that people hire executives who were involved with a company's down turn. Oh, but it's not their fault. Right?:thanx:What you describe is one of the reasons why my ears are deaf to their complaints of high costs.

Capitalism is destined to fail due to its bases in profit motivation. This profit motivation creates an insatiable desire for wealth in which individuals compete for resources. This competition leads to winners and loser the problem is that not all men are created equal.

The majority of the wealthy did not rise from the huddled masses they were born into wealth. In competing the wealthy begin with greater capital and economic resources such as Ivy League colleges and secret societies that are designed to control the masses.

As our population continues to grow wealth is becoming more condensed into fewer hands. Rome fell, fascism fell, communism is failing and so will capitalism. It is a destiny that cannot be prevented.


HUH??? I thought we resolved this argument decades ago?

As to the rest of your comments, you might find the book "The Millionaire Mind" by Thomas J Stanley, to be very eye-opening. In-depth research showed most wealthy people made it first generation. Most old money wealth in the research began to diminish by the second or third generation.

As to Monday Night Football, I'm from Cleveland. We really don't have a team... :( :( :(

To psyched1:

Which secret societies?
I belong to a number of them and the time when they got you more than a smile and the secret handshake is long gone!

There was a time, granted, when we flaunted pins in our lapels and rings on our fingers to signal to our "brethren" that we deserved special consideration (and got it!)

If there was a turning point, I'd guess it was the Kennedy Administration which signaled the beginning of the end.

Nixon put the kibosh on the Bohemia Grove in California - now the members are villified as homosexuals and avoid any reference, but it was a great male bonding thing for many years and did grant access to top politicians and bankers.

There are still secret cartels, but they are small, not widespread with membership at many social levels, but rich folks DO meet on private islands or on yachts in small groups, far from prying eyes, where they can talk about things with "some" confidence.

However, recent criminal cases of white collar fraud show you can't trust your co-conspirators to keep the conspiracy and not run and turn state's evidence against you. (Look at the number of plea deals in Enron alone!)

As I said, I belong to a number of secret societies and I don't think I could trust the brethren to keep a criminal conspiracy secret.

Wes.
With respect to whatever clubs/societies which you belong; I suppose you could argue their influence is a point of view. The fact that both Papa Bush and Bush Jr. are members of the same fraternal lodge, and the last 5 presidents are members of others, gives pause. I’m not so sure you could claim the influence of these societies is waning. Elsewhere, I gave a link to a book that suggests some of these fraternal lodges are alive and well. I suppose you could dismiss the author as another Roswell flake, conspiracy nut type, but he has the credentials, and the book is well research. Agreed, the point is debatable, but here's a question to ponder. Q: What is a successful conspiracy is called? A: Government.

Of course they are! Would you expect anything different. They would make it not possible for anybody else to sell stock if they could and get away with it but I guess Enron recked that for them. I guarantee that after dumping their stock they are working on securing any bonus that may come to them. They will be spending more time on that than anything else. Isn't it wonderful.
This type of behavior is very common and it never ceases to amaze me that people hire executives who were involved with a company's down turn. Oh, but it's not their fault. Right?:thanx:
Somone told me a story about when Magna was going through rough times some years back - and were kept a float by one of the Big 3 - that middle managers and up were "asked" to support the company by purchasing stock. And the ones that stuck with the company are very rich now. Anyone know more about this "story"?

Wes.
With respect to whatever clubs/societies which you belong; I suppose you could argue their influence is a point of view. The fact that both Papa Bush and Bush Jr. are members of the same fraternal lodge, and the last 5 presidents are members of others, gives pause. I’m not so sure you could claim the influence of these societies is waning. Elsewhere, I gave a link to a book that suggests some of these fraternal lodges are alive and well. I suppose you could dismiss the author as another Roswell flake, conspiracy nut type, but he has the credentials, and the book is well research. Agreed, the point is debatable, but here's a question to ponder. Q: What is a successful conspiracy is called? A: Government.What I am stating plainly is that it is fallacious to attribute malicious activity which one small group of people may engage in to the fact they coincidentally belong to the same organization.

This is just pure and simple bigotry extended to a social organization. Because many evil dictators in Africa were black, does that mean that all blacks wherever located are in a conspiracy with those evil dictators? Similarly, the folks in charge of the Inquisition were Roman Catholic as was Mother Teresa. Which conspiracy is more likely? Evil Jesuits or saintly nuns?

Founding fathers of the USA were Masons (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) - does that mean all Masons are similarly disposed to conspire to start a Revolution and rebel against the political authorities to impose THEIR idea of good government? Heck! Sometimes, we can't even agree on what color to paint the meeting room!

You may or may not believe me, but I am pretty sure folks do not join organizations like Masons, Skull & Bones, Knights of Malta, etc. to become part of a world-wide conspiracy. Folks join those organizations for the same reasons they join model train clubs, Methodist churches, and bowling leagues - to have some social interaction with folks who share similar interests, regardless if those interests are religion, weekly beer & bowling, playing with trains, collecting stamps, or interest in archaic initiation rituals, etc.

Rich guys join clubs with other rich guys because they don't want the guilt trip of leaving folks out who can't afford the things they like - ski trips to Aspen or St. Moritz, dinner at the Ritz, weekend trips to Hawaii, etc. Simply, rich folks don't join these organizations to get richer, but being in the company of other rich folks gives them access to folks with an interest in making and keeping wealth. They talk. There is an interchange of ideas and information, but no concerted conspiracy.

You may or may not believe me, but I am pretty sure folks do not join organizations like Masons, Skull & Bones, Knights of Malta, etc. to become part of a world-wide conspiracy. Folks join those organizations for the same reasons they join model train clubs, Methodist churches, and bowling leagues - to have some social interaction with folks who share similar interests...


I agree with you, Wes. But you have to admit, for those of us outside those "secret societies," speculating about the goings-on inside them is more fascinating than speculating about what goes on at the Methodist Church Women's Board Meeting...:D

There is an interchange of ideas and information, but no concerted conspiracy.

You're precisely correct; almost all conspiracy theorists depend on fallacious reasoning. Sometimes the fallacies are obvious, and sometimes a bit of research is needed in order to find the truth, but specious arguments aimed at intellectually lazy people are at the center of nearly all conspiracy theories. The fact that some of the people you describe might get together and form nefarious conspiracies is not an indication that the organizations they belong to are the cause, or that the organizations exist in order to produce nefarious conspiracies.

I am beginning to draw an unflattering conclusion from the many posts I've read here on the forum. I may draw a lot of flack for this, but I think it will be good for the industry, and, it is particularly applicable to this particular thread.

I just reread this whole thread, and it confirms my conclusion.

1. There is a lot of griping from many posters on this forum that their input at their companies is not given adequate and appropriate consideration and support.

I appreciate that this forum is open and people can and should express their feelings, and even vent once in a while. But, the amount of griping would be of the level expected when talking to rank and file operators, not managers.

2. Many posters on this forum are managers in their companies. Managers are supposed to be Leaders, Dreamers, visionary people that set the agenda and motivate their people to achieve it. Only some of the posters appear to be operating at that level of Leadership, and yet we gripe that our bosses won't lead...

Conclusion:
Is it possible that if we quality professionals thought more like leaders, and acted more like leaders, we would actually become true leaders? Then, we may find that we actually begin to receive more influence, and are taken seriously in meetings. You can't demand respect, you have to earn it. And, acting like a blue collar operator is not the route to get there.

I look forward to thoughtful opinions... (flameout posts would only reinforce my conclusion).

Happy New Year, folks. It's up to us to save the world.

2. Many of you are managers in your companies. Managers are supposed to be Leaders, Dreamers, visionary people that set the agenda and motivate their people to achieve it. Only some of the posters on this forum appear to be operating at that level of Leadership, yet we gripe that our bosses won't lead...

There does seem to be some Lenin followers here.

Is it possible that if we quality professionals thought more like leaders, and acted more like leaders, we would actually become true leaders? Then, we may find that we actually begin to receive more influence, and are taken seriously in meetings. You can't demand respect, you have to earn it. And, acting like a blue collar operator is not the route to get there.

In every company, regardless of size, there is a single point of authority, from which all subordinate authority emanates. If the Big Person delegates responsibility but not authority, fear and loathing will be the inevitable result. Being ordained a manager doesn't ipso facto mean that one has the authority to do anything significant. I might be able to think like a bird, but if I launch myself from a tenth-story ledge while thinking like a bird, the result will not be bird-like.

In every company, regardless of size, there is a single point of authority, from which all subordinate authority emanates. If the Big Person delegates responsibility but not authority, fear and loathing will be the inevitable result. Being ordained a manager doesn't ipso facto mean that one has the authority to do anything significant. I might be able to think like a bird, but if I launch myself from a tenth-story ledge while thinking like a bird, the result will not be bird-like.

Yes, but it isn't always that simple. Every company has the official people in charge, yet often, the real power and influence is with other people, and everyone knows who it is. It is not always the guy in the corner office. In fact, articles and books are written on this topic, and every good salesperson has figured it out.

Also, in most companies, (all but the most dictatorial), there are people in middle management who are gaining influence and power. I see them at every audit. The come out of the woodwork. They haven't been "granted" the authority yet, but I watch them develop over several years, and ultimately then end up with power. That is what I meant when i said they have to earn it. I have been in many situations where I did not start out with authority, but I earned it over time. In fact, that is the norm. You become the go-to person who has the facts and answers.

And, these people are never the gripers. They have issues, sure, but they demonstrate leadership, even when they are not overtly aware of it. They are sometimes even officially called fast-trackers, because insightful superiors noticed it.

But, I would say the primary thrust of my comment in the earlier post was that we have to become leaders. Carping and griping does not solve the problems.

I am beginning to draw an unflattering conclusion from the many posts I've read here on the forum. I may draw a lot of flack for this, but I think it will be good for the industry, and, it is particularly applicable to this particular thread.

I just reread this whole thread, and it confirms my conclusion.

1. There is a lot of griping from many posters on this forum that their input at their companies is not given adequate and approrpiate consideration and support.

I appreciate the fact this forum is open and people can and should express their feelings, and even vent once in a while. But, the amount of griping would be of the level expected when talking to rank and file operators, not managers.

2. Many of you are managers in your companies. Managers are supposed to be Leaders, Dreamers, visionary people that set the agenda and motivate their people to achieve it. Only some of the posters on this forum appear to be operating at that level of Leadership, yet we gripe that our bosses won't lead...

Conclusion:
Is it possible that if we quality professionals thought more like leaders, and acted more like leaders, we would actually become true leaders? Then, we may find that we actually begin to get more influence and are taken seriously in meetings. You can't demand rspect, you have to earn it. And, acting like a blue collar operator is not the route to get there.

I look forward to thoughtful opinions... (flameout posts would only reinforce the conclusion).

Happy New Year, folks. It's up to you to save the world.
Since I consider myself in the company of folks who earn respect, let me speak for the folks who don't have any, yet.

Being able to EARN respect requires two prerequisites:

opportunity to speak or act without punishment
an audience able to recognize merit and grant respectMany folks come to a place like the Cove to vent (often anonymously) because the opportunity is lacking in their work environment. Many people think of an oppressive workplace as some sweatshop that employs undocumented workers or a slave galley with a whip driving the oarsmen to stroke. The truth, unfortunately, is a lot closer to home:

a boss who belittles and ridicules his workers
a boss who secretly approves and therefore does not restrain or punish sexual harassment by other employees
nepotism
a company that hires "people like us" - no folks of color invited
the "good old boys" who keep the glass ceiling in place
the mega-corporation that "steals" a few minutes of each employee's unpaid break time by forcing them to work past or into the break time under the pretext of "customer service"
the boss who leases a Lexus instead of a Toyota, but denies the janitor a raise past minimum wage because "we can't afford it"The employee who works under such oppression may not have an opportunity to leave for another, better company because

geographic location limits opportunity
no opportunity to pay for education to increase skill set
"golden handcuffs" of health insurance which might be denied because of pre-existing condition at a new employer
mental depression after years of oppression
etc. etc.I, personally, am not a total altruist, but I did recognize one truth years and years ago:
"The folks I hire are there to HELP me. It is counterproductive to do anything which might hinder them from helping me."

So, I made sure they got enough to afford food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and family. I made sure we all had health insurance so an illness would NOT destroy our families. I made sure they had reliable transportation to get to work. I made sure they had the best and most efficient tools at work. I trusted them with my "big picture" and continually asked and considered their input on achieving and maintaining it. I did not treat them like traitors if they moved on, but tried to recruit them as ambassadors for my company and encouraged them to recommend employees, customers, or suppliers who might fit in with our "big picture."

I didn't INVENT this concept, but I sure believed in it. Some top managers haven't been as enlightened. The folks who work under such managers have a right to be fearful because such managers fire dissenters to avoid confronting ideas different from their own.

I am particularly reminded of Sunbeam's "Chainsaw Al" Dunlop who had no respect for his employees and treated them like something nasty stuck to his shoe. Chainsaw Al's employees lived in constant fear right up until his fall from grace. Many who tried to get by on the merit system were ridiculed and demoted by Al who had only one criterion:
"When I say 'Jump!' Don't ask 'Why?' Ask 'How high?'"

Yes, but it isn't always that simple. Every company has the official people in charge, yet often, the real power and influence is with other people, and everyone knows who it is. It is not always the guy in the corner office. In fact, articles and books are written on this topic, and every good salesperson has figured it out.

Authority is not always delegated explicitly; sometimes it's done by default or omission, but the fact remains that the people you refer to have their authority at the pleasure of a single person. Sometimes the fear and loathing results from this usurpation-by-default happening when an extraordinarily unqualified person becomes the "squeaky wheel" or when an inveterate sycophant does. It doesn't matter--the fact is that in many organizations, the people who are most deserving of authority will never see it, no matter what they do.

Also, in most companies, (all but the most dictatorial), there are people in middle management who are gaining influence and power. I see them at every audit. The come out of the woodwork. They haven't been "granted" the authority yet, but I watch them develop over several years, and ultimately then end up with power. That is what I meant when i said they have to earn it. I have been in many situations where I did not start out with authority, but I earned it over time. In fact, that is the norm. You become the go-to person who has the facts and answers.

This means that there is a person in authority who recognizes deserving individuals--even if belatedly--or the transfer of authority wouldn't take place, so I'm not sure what your point is. If you're saying that in a "good" organization, hard work and initiative will be rewarded, then I think you're proposing a self-fulfilling prophecy that has nothing to do with your contention that powerless people should rise up and spontaneously become powerful.

And, these people are never the gripers. They have issues, sure, but they demonstrate leadership, even when they are not overtly aware of it. They are sometimes even officially called fast-trackers, because insightful superiors noticed it.

I'm sorry, h, but this is more tautology. How can we identify potential leaders? They're the ones who don't gripe, thus not griping is a sign of leadership potential. When superiors are insightful, they will identify potential leaders and delegate authority accordingly. What about leaders who aren't insightful?

But, I would say the primary thrust of my comment in the earlier post was that we have to become leaders. Carping and griping does not solve the problems.

I agree that if we aspire to positions of authority, we have to show evidence that we're capable of using it wisely, and that b1tching and moaning for its own sake solves nothing. But if we show the evidence and don't whine and cry, and nothing happens, it doesn't mean that we will be able to accomplish anything noteworthy, either.

...I did recognize one truth years and years ago:
"The folks I hire are there to HELP me. It is counterproductive to do anything which might hinder them from helping me."

Boy, THAT should be on the wall of every office on Mahogany Row everywhere! :applause:

...I didn't INVENT this concept, but I sure believed in it. Some top managers haven't been as enlightened.

I daresay, winning companies all follow this. I doubt very many losing companies do. I would think this constitutes Cause and Effect!?

What I am stating plainly is that it is fallacious to attribute malicious activity which one small group of people may engage in to the fact they coincidentally belong to the same organization.

This is just pure and simple bigotry extended to a social organization. Because many evil dictators in Africa were black, does that mean that all blacks wherever located are in a conspiracy with those evil dictators?
True, but there is another point here - coincidental vs intentional membership. It is clearly inappropriate to label all people of Arab descent as terrorists because of the coincidence of the genes of their parents. However, if a person intentionally joins al-Qaida then there is a good chance that they share the general ideology of the other members.

Membership in groups like the Masons or Skull & Bones is not automatic, so the people who are allowed in is limited. One big question is which is the cause and which is the effect. Did young George Bush join Skull & Bones because he thought it would enhance his career? Did he join because his parents thought it would enhance his career? Did it truly enhance his career, or did his abilities, personality & background (well, maybe not his abilities ;)) destine him for leadership?

Personally I agree with Wes' general conclusion, that similar people tend to gather with similar people, and memebership in these groups is more of an effect of wealth & power rather than a cause.

Tim F

"The folks I hire are there to HELP me. It is counterproductive to do anything which might hinder them from helping me."

This brings to mind Deming's simple definition of the responsibility of managers: helping people to do a better job. If I'm in an advantageous position, my responsibility is to help people who aren't. By so doing, as Wes suggests, I help myself. Many managers not only don't help people to do a better job, they do everything they can do to hinder progress, sometimes conciously.

(Originally Posted by hjilling) And, these people are never the gripers. They have issues, sure, but they demonstrate leadership, even when they are not overtly aware of it. They are sometimes even officially called fast-trackers, because insightful superiors noticed it.

I'm sorry, h, but this is more tautology. How can we identify potential leaders? They're the ones who don't gripe, thus not griping is a sign of leadership potential. When superiors are insightful, they will identify potential leaders and delegate authority accordingly. What about leaders who aren't insightful?

No, I think your command of the language is excellent and you realize that was not my argument. Leaders do more than just gripe. But, non-gripers are not necessarily Leaders. Let's not mix the two statements, because they are two different thoughts.

My premise is simply that if we are managers, we need to be leaders, not just gripers.

1. The quiet "leaders-in -the-making" I described often were in companies where top management was terrible. That is precisely why certain middle managers became leaders. Out of necessity, if the boss is asleep.
2. Leaders make something happen, gripers only make hot air.
3. Every manager has some sphere of influence. Take what you have and start there. A manager who claims he has no options or power whatsoever, should do some reading for self-development. He is not a manager.
4. It is unfair to gripe about your boss not doing anything, if you aren't doing anything but griping.
5. Defense does not win the football game by itself. Some still has to carry the ball forward. But, whoever carries the ball, can expect to get hit by some pretty big dudes.

But, I would say the primary thrust of my comment in the earlier post was that we have to become leaders. Carping and griping does not solve the problems.
I agree that if we aspire to positions of authority, we have to show evidence that we're capable of using it wisely, and that b1tching and moaning for its own sake solves nothing. But if we show the evidence and don't whine and cry, and nothing happens, it doesn't mean that we will be able to accomplish anything noteworthy, either.


I do agree with you here.

Boy, THAT should be on the wall of every office on Mahogany Row everywhere! :applause:



I daresay, winning companies all follow this. I doubt very many losing companies do. I would think this constitutes Cause and Effect!?
This is NOT necessary to be a consistently winning company. In fact, it may contribute to the demise of some companies, especially when a shrewd operator comes in as the 800 pound gorilla who knocks away all competitors as Walmart has done in small towns around the world.

Before Christmas, I saw an ad for Walmart which advertised a folding camp chair and carry bag with a shoulder strap for less than I could buy the fabric and strap for the carry bag alone in the same store! Except for my private boycott against Walmart, I would have bought the camp chair and carry bag at Walmart and given away the chair and kept the carry bag to use for my camera tripod. A similar carry bag in my photo store was 3 times the price of the camp chair and carry bag combination. Sadly, the net result is I have no carry bag and my photo store still holds an empty bag (irony intended), while Walmart has sold out its remaining inventory of camp chairs made in some foreign country where people are persecuted for speaking out against their government!

I heard a great quote the other day (from the book "Good to Great" by Jim Collins):

A Manager's job is not in "motivating" his people. His job is to remove the "De-motivating" things that hinder his employees! If he does this, most employees will motivate themselves!

In the last few weeks, I have been looking at this, and I agree there is a lot of power in that thought.

Sherron Watkins probably has another opinion about leadership roles and responsibilities. We’re all enlightened, conscientious, ethical folks; I’m sure we’ll never find ourselves in her place..?

In this place my griping brings me no fear of losing favor with my managers. My husband's family doesn't think far past the surface of these issues, so I have learned not to raise them because I get blank looks.

Also, in my workplace I am limited to what I can say for technical reasons: they can't understand much of the language we use or the concepts. (I am working in public education)

In the places I've worked, a Quality Manager is actually more of an advisory position than executive management. As Safety Program manager, I could influence management but with limits; I couldn't get them to buy a flammable locker or stop using a certain piece of electrical equipment with a tagged out cord (broken insulation.) Eventually I told them I didn't want the title anymore because I could be held up to 20% liable in event of lawsuits.

It is difficult to feel one knows better and yet see a thing careening down a path of failure. If you'll recall, most of my verbal angst is about the unethical nature of it: executives rewarding bonuses for themselves while cutting employees or supporting programs.

I am angry because the next generation of workers is watching, and their attitude is beginning to absorb some of this sense of entitlement. If it's not genuinely entitlement, actual feelings may be helplessness or simply apathy. Turning the American Dream into The American Pipe Dream is doing lasting damage to our workforce's spirit.

Is this Lenin talk? Perhaps an executive might think so. I saw an executive (for an airline, I think) brush off "the philosophers" and cite the "reality" of potentially losing his top managers, so he was forced to establish attractive pay and bonus plans for them while entering bankruptcy.

So I'm a philosopher and have been since my last quality job disappeared in 2001. Hey, if I was actually employed in my field I might be too busy to be a philosopher! ;) One can but hope...

Hardly a day goes by with out a headline like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/abramoff.plea/index.html

This story, the demise of GM and other industry titans, are of a kind. The frequency (excluding magnitude) of such news paints “management” in an un-becoming light. We’re all standing under a tree bickering, and micro analyzing the cause of a piece of fallen fruit, and haven’t noticed the blighted bows – The tree is dying.

It’s like watching the freak’n nature channel! Can’t you hear the narrator as we watch another grizzly kill?: “Here, special night-light lenses capture the illusive [show case varmint]. In it’s natural habitat, and the struggle for survival is played out again. ”

I recall another guy named Lennon, who earned a spot on a watch list. At the core of management, government, and even our basic ideologies, something is off center. There is an unspoken ugliness here: And if in the naming I am labeled communist – I’m unworthy, pay this honor to another.

Somone told me a story about when Magna was going through rough times some years back - and were kept a float by one of the Big 3 - that middle managers and up were "asked" to support the company by purchasing stock. And the ones that stuck with the company are very rich now. Anyone know more about this "story"?
That's a nice story. Here's a nickle.
What secret society are you part of? Get out of the closet and look around. I've had intimate relationships with officials in all the big 2.5 and let me tell ya, they're no saints honey and 2.5 is about it.

Unless you buy stock directly from the company, the stock sale doesn't benefit the company, only the previous owner of the stock. Urban myth time? Supporting the stock price only supports the insiders who have options that are worthless when the stock price drops. (Lots of folks have options that are "under water.")

On the other hand, there have been lots of "pump and dump" campaigns to raise stock prices so insiders could dump for a profit and get out before the bubble burst (a big factor in the Enron debacle when employees 401k funds with Enron stock were frozen while execs dumped their own holdings of Enron.)

"Intimate relations?" At my age, that phrase only brings one image to mind:o

"Intimate relations?" At my age, that phrase only brings one image to mind:o

Age notwithstanding, "intimate relations" was preceded by a request for someone to "Get out of the closet..." which creates even more disturbing image (not that there's anything wrong with that :cool: .)

"Intimate relations?" At my age, that phrase only brings one image to mind:o

TV Pizza and Beer? ;)

TV Pizza and Beer? ;)

For me it is a Hytrin and water :D

TV Pizza and Beer? ;)
You must not read my posts - margaritas are my chemical of choice!
Tonight, I'm making bay scallops, scampi style, with broccoli and baked potato and champagne. Vanilla ice cream with raspberry sauce for dessert! Maybe some beer to go with the Rose Bowl tomorrow.

You must not read my posts - margaritas are my chemical of choice!
Tonight, I'm making bay scallops, scampi style, with broccoli and baked potato and champagne. Vanilla ice cream with raspberry sauce for dessert! Maybe some beer to go with the Rose Bowl tomorrow.

Dude, the Rose Bowl is tonight:cool: .

plz excuse the nubie's errs.

ralph, you're the man!!!

Dude, the Rose Bowl is tonight:cool: .
I'll never be able to stay awake, so I'm taping to watch tomorrow morning. Added bonus - I can fastforward through the commercials! I won't read papers, watch TV, or listen to radio until I watch.

Tonight, I'm making bay scallops, scampi style, with broccoli and baked potato and champagne. Vanilla ice cream with raspberry sauce for dessert!
Yum. What time should I be there?:)

PS - My sister-in-law and her husband live in Champagne, Illinois.

Yum. What time should I be there?:)

PS - My sister-in-law and her husband live in Champagne, Illinois.I have a hunch they probably live in Champaign, Illinois, home of the University of Illinois (http://www.uiuc.edu/)

Wes's general Procedure for Bay Scallop Scampi:Ingredients (serves 2 to 4, depending on side dishes):

1 # bay scallops (the tiny 3/4 inch cubes)
1/4 # butter
4 - 8 cloves fresh garlic
Lemon wedges
champagneProcess

coarse mince garlic
saute garlic in butter
add scallops, saute lightly 2-3 minutes
add 1/4 cup champagne and juice from 1/2 lemon
toss lightly
remove from stove top and run mixture under broiler 2-3 minutes
(until tops of scallops are lightly browned)
serve with remaining lemon wedgesOptions

substitute olive oil or clarified butter for butter
use any white wine or wine may be omitted
serve over angel hair pasta or any pasta (shapes, tubes, strands)