I figured the readers and responders on this forum may generally agree and be able to relate to this particular write up in the Washington Post. The author touches on some good points - that mainly Kerkorian has proposed this alliance or merger with Renault simply for the price of the stock - with absolutely no regard for the long term health and well being of General Motors. Moreover, he touches on how unsuccessful Nissan (and Renault) have been in so many areas, even in some where they've tried to take on GM directly (like the Titan).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071401040.html

Edited July 15, 200619 yr by gmcbob

It was a very accurate assessment of the situation with Kerkorian. He doesn't care about the history of GM and how GM's results and survival impact the US either in the short or long terms.

The gist of the article is that Kerkorian and York have already established what they are. What hasn't been established, at least with regard to GM, is the price.

I'd love to see Kirk forced to sell all his GM shares for a dollar less than he paid for them.

I figured the readers and responders on this forum may generally agree and be able to relate to this particular write up in the Washington Post.  The author touches on some good points - that mainly Kerkorian has proposed this alliance or merger with Renault simply  for the price of the stock - with absolutely no regard for the long term health and well being of General Motors.  Moreover, he touches on how unsuccessful Nissan (and Renault) have been in so many areas, even in some where they've tried to take on GM directly (like the Titan).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071401040.html

167067[/snapback]

It was a very accurate assessment of the situation with Kerkorian. He doesn't care about the history of GM and how GM's results and survival impact the US either in the short or long terms.

The gist of the article is that Kerkorian and York have already established what they are. What hasn't been established, at least with regard to GM, is the price.

I'd love to see Kirk forced to sell all his GM shares for a dollar less than he paid for them.

167923[/snapback]

and how would that be possible?

He doesn't own the company. He owns a good sized chunk of it but not even close to a majority. He'd sell if it became clear he wasn't going to be able to bully Wagnoner or the rest of the board. In fact the board could oust York at some point which would probably be enough for Kerkorian to want to sell. All this is possible if the business outlook for GM turns around. Judging from the product pipeline they could do it if they execute properly, INCLUDING getting a marketing team that could fight themselves out of a paper bag. The current one can't.

and how would that be possible?

167925[/snapback]

Socialists point to this type of corporate opportunism as the Achilles heal of Capitalism. Capitalism is a good thing when it results in greater competition, because the theory goes that this then leads to innovation and greater productivity. However, at its core, capitalism really is about greed and how enough money never really is.

Isn't Kerkorian nearly dead? How much money does it take to make someone retire to a golf course?

kerkorian, george soros, they all hate us and the american way. they just want enough and more than enough to further their own agendas. the need the dough to force their opinions and ideals on us.

What's a socialist?

What's a socialist?

168037[/snapback]

i don't know, but they make good cookies!

What's a socialist?

168037[/snapback]

Socialist: Someone who believes in socialism.

Socialism:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

--------------------

People need to stop mixing political and economical ideals, though.

...snipped...

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

168126[/snapback]

..... and it never *will* be....

i don't know, but they make good cookies!

168071[/snapback]

People need to stop mixing political and economical ideals, though.

168126[/snapback]

is that 'really' possible???

is that 'really' possible???

168202[/snapback]

Of course not.

He meant "economic" and not "economical."

At the end of the day, economic interests ARE political interests.