On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:26:42 -0500, Jim wrote:

But it's probably wrong. The IBM number looks global.
You could have as well mentioned Ford, Boeing, GE, UPS, GM, etc.
They all provide more jobs for Americans.
Wouldn't fit in with the union-bashing though.

I might agree with your list if you had left off GM. There is no
possible way that GM can be regarded as successful.

I'm not necessarily a union basher either since there are some that
are responsible. I actually belonged to the CWA at one brief time in
my life. Non-union manufacuring however is definitely one of the many
keys to IBM's success.

bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:38:16 -0400,
wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:14:47 -0400,
wrote:



wrote:


On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:50:01 -0400,
wrote:





That's the problem. He thinks it's a person or persons.


ever hear of john paulson? why not look him up.

tell me wall street isnt run by people



Wall Street is a street in NY that is the location of most of our stock
exchanges - NYSE, AMEX, and NASAQ, among others. Sure they are run by
people, but so is your local McDonald's.


gee. what does the wall street journal cover? THEY seem to think the
term has some validity

if you right wingers are this dense no wonder you trashed the economy.
you dont even know who the folks are who wrecked it!


Gee. They cover everything including world events. Care to try again?
I'm interested in who/what you are blaming with your overuse/misuse of
the term "Wall Street".

bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:31:40 -0400,
wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:50:01 -0400,
wrote:



bpuharic wrote:


On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:43:47 -0400, wrote:


STOLE THE FREAKIN' ECONOMY!




and people were not paying attention to where the money was coming
from. There was plenty of greed to go around. What about those yuppies
house flippers who were borrowing 99% of the home price, hoping they
would never have to make a payment or the ones with the 125% home
equity loans?
There were some people who knew this was going to crash. The smart
builders were scaling back in 2006.



well golly. if people were so smart why are we in the condition we're
in?



Define "wall street" in your own words...


ever hear of morgan stanley?



Sure, but they aren't "Wall Street".

why? did he work in botswana?

HE? Do you think there is/was a guy named Morgan Stanley that is
relevant to your tirade?

bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:16:19 -0400, wrote:


On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 05:39:41 -0400, wrote:


ever hear of morgan stanley?



Sure, but they aren't "Wall Street".

why? did he work in botswana?

He?
Do you think there is or was a guy named Morgan Stanley?

do you think no one works for morgan stanley?


Nice deflection but unrelated to your claim.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:26:42 -0500, Jim wrote:

But it's probably wrong. The IBM number looks global.
You could have as well mentioned Ford, Boeing, GE, UPS, GM, etc.
They all provide more jobs for Americans.
Wouldn't fit in with the union-bashing though.

I might agree with your list if you had left off GM. There is no
possible way that GM can be regarded as successful.


Ok, GM *was* very successful. And they could come back.
Any company can fail at any time.
Are you familiar with Citigroup?
GM and Citigroup were booted from the DJIA the same day.
Two years prior everybody was calling them "successful" companies.
Instead they became Gov Motors and GovGroup.
Same can happen to IBM.

Is Citigroup a union shop?
Probably not. The Fed doesn't continually print interest free money for
GM as they've done for Citigroup.
GM has to turn a profit on tangible goods to pay off the gov.
Citibank can just produce some balance sheets, smear them with pig
lipstick, and hand them over to Obama's Fed Reserve Wall Street guys at
lunch in the Fed Reserve dining room.
Their pals.

"Tim, looks like we could use another interest free $10 billion.
Print the cash up ASAP. As usual, we'll use it to buy your Treasuries
and you pay us +3%. For the good of the economy, you know.
And please give my compliments to your chef."
These guys make union "mobsters" look like pikers.
Even Al Capone didn't get a taxpayer-paid chef.

You're familiar with "As goes GM, so goes the nation."
Might be true, might not be.
Tell you one thing for sure, this country wouldn't even miss Citigroup.

I'm not necessarily a union basher either since there are some that
are responsible. I actually belonged to the CWA at one brief time in
my life. Non-union manufacuring however is definitely one of the many
keys to IBM's success.


Maybe, maybe not. Since IBM's never been union, you don't know.
It's your right to guess about it. That's all you got.
IBM's primary revenue generator has been services for many years.
Most of their manufacturing has been in cheap overseas labor markets for
many years.
Besides, somehow chip production, nano-technology and research engineer
unions never really got off the ground.
BTW, ballerinas never got their union going either.

What we do know is toxic Citigroup is non-union and a massive failure.
So is non-union toxic Goldman and non-union toxic AIG.
All still loaded with toxic assets and being propped up by the Fed.
And we also know that many, many non-union manufacturers have gone bust.
Anytime I see knee-jerk union bashing I question it.
Way too easy to blame "others' for everything you think is wrong.

Here's the top 10 U.S. bankruptcies.
You pick the ones killed by unions.
I'll pick the ones killed by management.
They're all mine. Every single one.


Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. 2008-09-15 $639,063,000,800
Washington Mutual 2008-09-26 $327,913,000,000
Worldcom Inc. 2002-07-21 $103,914,000,000
General Motors Corporation 2009-06-01 $82,300,000,000
CIT Group 2009-11-01 $71,019,200,000
Enron Corp.* 2001-02-12 $63,392,000,000
Conseco, Inc. 2002-12-18 $61,392,000,000
Chrysler LLC 2009-04-30 $39,300,000,000
Texaco, Inc. 1987-04-12 $35,892,000,000
Financial Corp. of America 1988-09-09 $33,864,000,000

Jim - Facts are easy to come by. But it's even easier to wing it.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:05:02 -0500, Jim wrote:

Here's the top 10 U.S. bankruptcies.
You pick the ones killed by unions.
I'll pick the ones killed by management.
They're all mine. Every single one.


Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. 2008-09-15 $639,063,000,800
Washington Mutual 2008-09-26 $327,913,000,000
Worldcom Inc. 2002-07-21 $103,914,000,000
General Motors Corporation 2009-06-01 $82,300,000,000
CIT Group 2009-11-01 $71,019,200,000
Enron Corp.* 2001-02-12 $63,392,000,000
Conseco, Inc. 2002-12-18 $61,392,000,000
Chrysler LLC 2009-04-30 $39,300,000,000
Texaco, Inc. 1987-04-12 $35,892,000,000
Financial Corp. of America 1988-09-09 $33,864,000,000

Jim - Facts are easy to come by. But it's even easier to wing it.

Speaking of winging it, what makes you think that Texaco went
bankrupt? They merged with Chevron in 2001, very succesful at the
time of the merger, still successful as a merged entity today.

In 1987, Texaco was forced to file for Chapter 11 because it could not
afford to pay a jury award to Pennzoil. That award had been knocked
down by a judge from $10.53 billion. Pennzoil successfully sued
Texaco for jumping its planned merger with Getty Oil, in part, by
moving the case to local court near its headquarters. The jury awarded
triple damages.

Texaco sought protection under federal bankruptcy laws in order to buy
time and negotiate a better settlement with Pennzoil. Subsequently,
Texaco was able to settle with Pennzoil at a reduced payment of $3
billion. In April of 1988, Texaco emerged from bankruptcy and
continued to expand their market share.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=cvx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texaco

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:05:02 -0500, Jim wrote:

Here's the top 10 U.S. bankruptcies.
You pick the ones killed by unions.
I'll pick the ones killed by management.
They're all mine. Every single one.


Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. 2008-09-15 $639,063,000,800
Washington Mutual 2008-09-26 $327,913,000,000
Worldcom Inc. 2002-07-21 $103,914,000,000
General Motors Corporation 2009-06-01 $82,300,000,000
CIT Group 2009-11-01 $71,019,200,000
Enron Corp.* 2001-02-12 $63,392,000,000
Conseco, Inc. 2002-12-18 $61,392,000,000
Chrysler LLC 2009-04-30 $39,300,000,000
Texaco, Inc. 1987-04-12 $35,892,000,000
Financial Corp. of America 1988-09-09 $33,864,000,000

Jim - Facts are easy to come by. But it's even easier to wing it.

Speaking of winging it, what makes you think that Texaco went
bankrupt? They merged with Chevron in 2001, very succesful at the
time of the merger, still successful as a merged entity today.


Go argue with the Wall Street Journal, wiki, etc.
That's where the chart is from.
Next you'll be claiming GM and Chrysler didn't go bankrupt either.
FYI, Chapter 11 is bankruptcy.
You don't get to make up your own bankruptcy rules on rec.boats.
Speaking of Dodge, nice one avoiding answering why so many non-union
companies go bankrupt.
I'd do the same - if I was prone to dodging and cherry picking.
I'm not.
So I'll just assume you didn't answer because you can't blame a union.
That's clear enough.

Jim - Done here.

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:59:17 -0400,
wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:38:16 -0400,
wrote:



Wall Street is a street in NY that is the location of most of our stock
exchanges - NYSE, AMEX, and NASAQ, among others. Sure they are run by
people, but so is your local McDonald's.



gee. what does the wall street journal cover? THEY seem to think the
term has some validity

if you right wingers are this dense no wonder you trashed the economy.
you dont even know who the folks are who wrecked it!



Gee. They cover everything including world events. Care to try again?
I'm interested in who/what you are blaming with your overuse/misuse of
the term "Wall Street".

now THIS answer says alot about the right wing

he believes WALL STREET is the entire world....

couldnt have said it better myself


No, you are too stupid to read. The WSJ covers world events. Your
statement was wrong. You are correct that there isn't anything you
could say better yourself.

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:01:05 -0400,
wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:31:40 -0400,
wrote:





well golly. if people were so smart why are we in the condition we're
in?




Define "wall street" in your own words...



ever hear of morgan stanley?




Sure, but they aren't "Wall Street".


why? did he work in botswana?


HE? Do you think there is/was a guy named Morgan Stanley that is
relevant to your tirade?

says the guy who thinks wall street is the center of the universe

You can't get any dumber with that statement. You dwell on this "Wall
Street" thing yet you have no idea what you are talking about.

Gee. They cover everything including world events. Care to try again?
I'm interested in who/what you are blaming with your overuse/misuse of
the term "Wall Street".

now THIS answer says alot about the right wing

he believes WALL STREET is the entire world....

couldnt have said it better myself


No, you are too stupid to read. The WSJ covers world events. Your
statement was wrong. You are correct that there isn't anything you
could say better yourself.

let's see...it's not the WORLD street journal

it's the WALLSTREET journal

anybody with a brain could figure out that means something.

and that explains why you can't