Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View 153972's Comments BY TICKER:

Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]

    Yes, it is thanks to a Republican legislature and governor. It is obvious that industrial feudalism can also exist in the North.

    Moreover and as I recall Taft-Hartley was also legislated by a majority of the GOP in both houses and vetoed by Truman - a Democrat - but that veto was overridden by the infamous "Do Nothing Congress" that did end labor protection for many working class citizens. I am sure some Southern Democrats voted with the GOP to override Truman so Blue Dog Democrats are also to blame IMO.

    The point of my rant was not party affiliation or that North or the West or the East doesn't have right to work for less states. The point was that it is concentrated in the South and that middle class workers and the working poor ought to vote their financial interests because the industrialists, banksters, healthcare associations, NAM, oil industry, and etc., certainly do and also lobby as well as bribe (oops I meant donate), accordingly.

    Please don't mention that some business people are Democrats or that Hollywood is. There are aberrations and mutations everywhere in the Universe.
    Nov 25, 2015. 07:12 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]

    I wouldn't blame the union shops in the North as much as the right to work for less states elected representatives in the South and some of the workers in those states that do not organize for their own financial betterment and working conditions.

    To be sure, some right to work for less states in the South have become almost company states( instead of company towns during the Gilded Age) in the sense that the give aways to Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Honda, Toyota, et al is a financial windfall for them yet the poor, middle class and working poor in those same states receive an inferior public education, less Medicare benefits, less unemployment benefits, and pay proportionately more taxes than the Carpetbagging foreign industrialists or the autoworkers in the North and the corresponding working poor in the North.

    The upshot is instead of blaming union members for negotiating a better wage, etc, shouldn't working class Southernors get out of the industrial feudalism that is sometimes practiced in this country and also vote in representatives that are more aligned with their interests?
    Nov 25, 2015. 02:11 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]
    F Shareholders,

    Read this yesterday on Motley Fool re: union agreement and F management.

    Thought it might be of interest in addition to some of the other financial and accounting comments about the agreement that I've read in this section.
    Nov 25, 2015. 11:00 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]

    I think we've found agreement on the PC culture on college campuses today. It is so inane today.
    Nov 24, 2015. 05:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]

    Aren't you tired of being an ideologue and also exposing your lack of facts?
    Nov 24, 2015. 05:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]

    Do a little homework and quit commenting as if GM, F, Chrysler didn't get their lunch ate by Toyota, Honda, Nissan (Datsun back then) as well as European car manufacturers. The Detroit boys got fat and lazy, didn't invest, didn't market and didn't care about safety with the exception of Iacocca who was a breath of fresh air in a polluted environment.

    BTW wasn't Iacocca fired from F by Henry Ford II?

    And the band played on...
    Nov 24, 2015. 05:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]

    Your comments blaming unions for failures by Ford, GM, Chrysler, little and big steel, the airlines and truckers because of incompetent management decisions is is so misplaced I have to question your critical, analytical and judgement skills as well as your comprehension skills regarding business history.

    I suggest you enroll in a MBA program and focus on the aforementioned companies management, marketing, R&D investments in the US vis-a-vis their European and Japanese competitors who were also unionized cica 1970s, 80s, and 90s.
    Nov 22, 2015. 07:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Prosecutors eye criminal cases against RBS, JPM execs over financial crisis [View news story]

    What you know about US jurisprudence could fill a thimble; and that maybe a stretch. How do you explain Hank Greenburg, former head of AIG, suing the US government?

    I suggest you read the link below and gain some knowledge on sovereign immunity if you aren't too busy eating crow.

    And once again, you haven't provided any refutations of my assertions.

    Do you really enjoy writing about economics, finance and now law and not knowing what you are talking about? It is as if you enjoy looking naive to anyone that reads your posts.

    I'll conclude that writing or saying something and having limited or no knowlege about the subject is like saying or writing nothing at all.

    Au revoir
    Nov 22, 2015. 11:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]

    The last time I checked management signed off on any union contract. No one put a gun to their head to sign the agreement. Your insight and knowledge about collective bargaining is about as informative as your opinions about unions.

    Nov 22, 2015. 09:54 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]
    Tdot, Your statement about national socialism then extrapolating it into my rant, a quote from Dr. King and link from Josehph Stiglitz is so off the mark in and extreme in comparison I won't further comment about your assertion because it is so off the mark.

    I do like to read about your comments about Ford, however.
    Nov 22, 2015. 09:48 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]

    That is the best you have is to allude that I'm a communist because I disagree with your reactionary right wing statement about unions?

    Unions have increased the average person's wage when they are in a union shop vis-a-vis a non-union setting. They also provide the workers a pension as long as it is not tied to the corporation's balance sheet. They provide the worker a say in working conditions, safety, etc.

    I more than an understand that as a US capitalist unions are an anathema to you but for the average working person unions represent a viable option of representation from corporate excesses.

    "[W]e are saying that something is wrong ... with capitalism.... There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. Call it what you may, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God's children." Martin Luther King Jr.

    I'll trump your economist with another.
    Nov 21, 2015. 07:27 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford workers approve UAW labor contract [View news story]

    Long live ologopolies, plutocracy and kleptocracy. Hail unfetterd capitalism because tt has always worked so good for the average American. Hail tax incentives to move jobs oversees. Hail productivity increases going exclusively to the top 1%. Hail to the shrinking middle class, therefore a viable democracy.
    Nov 21, 2015. 02:45 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Prosecutors eye criminal cases against RBS, JPM execs over financial crisis [View news story]

    Once again you haven't responded to either of my rants with retorts that anyway refutes either one of my rants. In fact both responses by you were inane or support my argument.

    You either can't refute what I've asserted because it is accurate or you don't have the knowledge to provide sound, factual rebuttals so you respond with a column from a libertarian that doesn't in any way refute my assertion that if the government forced banks to make shoddy loans, then where are the lawsuits from the banks. If they were harmed by the government by forcing them to make loans they didn't want to make then certainly there is a justification for a law suit.

    I then respond to your non response by refuting the libertarian's arguments or agreeing with his statement about Fannie and Freddie but providing a different reason why the execs at Fannie and Freddie did what they did and you respond with a graph reflecting the stock markets from the 1870s to present day and another inane response about the FED that in no way substantiates your assertion because the FED did not cause the Great Depression, nor the 1920 recession, nor many other recessions. This is not to say that the FED wasn't partially responsible for some of them but in no way were they mostly responsible for any economic downturn.

    Then I get another paragraph that blames Carter's recession on Reagan's S&L crises and scandal. What the hell do to two have to do with each other? One was caused by an inflationary cycle in the 70s due to the FED promoting loose monetary policy, we had just exited a guns and butter economy in the 60s, and soaring commodity inflation that started in early 70s with Nixon and progressed into the Ford administrations, and culminated in the Carter administration until Volcker implemented FED tightening measures, where as Reagan's S&L crises and scandal was precipitated by deregulation of depository interest rates, permitting S&Ls to enter into the commercial loan market and also permitting S&Ls to utilize money markets.

    You then provide a link from a hedge fund manager essentially supporting my argument that deregulation was the primary cause one the Great Recession.

    FYI: the failure of Bear-Sterns that was an investment bank started the markets roiling but the collapse of Lehman another investment bank started the house of cards to fall. Inasmuch as Lehman was not a depository bank its collapse was not because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. lt was because of too much leverage, fraud by Lehman execs through accounting gimmicks, and counter-party risks just to name a few.

    In sum, you first state a libertarian argument that doesn't in any way disprove my argument about why the banks haven't sued the government; then you respond to second rant about deregulation with an inane graph that doesn't support your assertion about the FED in any way shape or form; then I read that the Carter administration caused Reagan's S&L scandal and finally a link supporting my assertion that deregulation was one of the causes of Bush Jr. experienced the Great Recession, which I had proposed to you in the second rant.

    You have wasted my time as so many SA readers and commenters do when engaged in a debate about economics, finances, etc.

    I've tried to engage with you in written dialogue for the purpose of learning something that heretofore I didn't know. Unfortunately it was a waste of my time. I am not surprised because many of the SA commenters are either uninformed, therefore naive or ideologues that don't want to be confused with the facts because they already have their mind made up.

    C'est la vie.
    Nov 20, 2015. 07:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Prosecutors eye criminal cases against RBS, JPM execs over financial crisis [View news story]

    You did not provide proof of one lawsuit. Thank you for confirming my earlier rant.

    Accepting Yaron Brook's piece as gospel coming from someone who is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute that wants to end all government except for national defense is not a credible refutation due to his bias.

    In short, he is not credible because of his following Rand's objectivism theory.

    Secondly, his opinions are biased against any government regulation so his opinion piece The Government Did It rings hollow.

    The CRA argument has been disproven by numerous studies.

    I do agree that Fannie and Freddie bought suspect loans from the banksters. IMO those execs were part of the problem of taking on to much risk. Why did they do it? Similar to the reason the market crashed in 1929 when there was almost zero regulation, that is greed and rampant speculation.

    It is odd that Mr. Brooks does not mention the banksters leverage just before the crises, the ratings scandal, that Greenspan a fellow acolyte of Rand's objectivism was chairman of the FED when interest rates were too low as he asserts, etc.

    The problem with Mr. Brooks and similar to other Rand followers and libertarians is that they think the market ought to be the final arbiter as if it is some god that needs to obeyed at our peril. They don't recognize that the post Great Depression regulations prevented financial bubbles from occurring until Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. began deregulating the banks because of the 5 billion dollars in bribes from the banking sector to politicians to promote large swaths of banking deregulation through lobbying, PACs , etc.

    To be sure, prior to New Deal banking regulations our country experiences several boom and bust depression due to banking irregularities and there was almost zero or no regulation until 1913 for interstate banks and even then it was very, very limited. If Mr. Market was so smart then how come we've had so many devastating market downturns in the world and US history before New Deal regulations?

    And if effective regulation was so catastrophic why didn't we have another financial crises until Reagan and Bush II?
    Nov 20, 2015. 02:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • McKesson Corp.: Maybe There Still Are Undervalued Stocks In The US [View article]

    The below link is from Motley Fool about Hammergren's compensation.

    I for one find the pension and golden parachute outlandish.

    With that said, Mr. Hammergren has done an outstanding job as CEO for MCK and the shareholder has been rewarded handsomely. I don't think he is worth $300M if he were to be terminated, however.

    What say you?
    Nov 20, 2015. 12:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment