Saturday, April 19, 2014

Ford avoided bankruptcy but at who's expense?




Agent Oran


The unemployment rate in the United States reached a 26-year high of 9.7 percent in August 2009, and many economists expect it will continue to rise until it peaks above 10 percent in the first half of next year, Reuters reports.

Meanwhile, positive hiring news came last week from General Motors Co., which announced on Tuesday that it plans to recall 2,400 factory workers to plants in Michigan, Indiana and Kansas, adding additional shifts to the facilities to keep them operating around the clock to meet increased demand for certain vehicles, the New York Times reports. About a month ago, GM said it would rehire 1,350 laid-off factory workers in Ohio and Ontario as it began to increase production after a year of drastic cuts; those workers are scheduled to report in October.

Ford Forecasts 2011 Profitability
In a press conference in New Delhi, India, last week, Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally said he expected his company to return to profitability in 2011, predicting U.S. sales will reach 10.5 to 11 million units in 2009, 12.5 million in 2010 and 14.5 million in 2011, Agence France-Presse reports.

According to Mulally, the outcome of this rate of sales coupled with "[t]he guidance we have given overall â because we continue to invest in new products â is that we will be profitable in 2011."

Ford, the only major U.S. automaker to have avoided bankruptcy, has gone through three consecutive years of annual losses totaling $30 billion, with a $1.4 billion decline in the first quarter of 2009 alone, AFP reports.

Much of the company's planned turnaround depends on expanding its presence in Asian markets. According to CNN Money, Ford is investing $500 million in its Indian manufacturing plant to expand production to 200,000 units per year, with a special focus on the new Figo model designed for the Asian small-car market. Ford has similar plans for expansion in China, preparing to construct a new factory in southern China for the production of high-end sedans and sport-utility vehicles at a volume of 300,000 units annually, Bloomberg News reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know GM has foreign plants, in fact they are closing the Lorain, Ohio plant and moving it to Mexico to build a new motor.

What are these companies doing to help the American worker?
Would you consider them to be un-patriotic?

It seems to me that to keep them here we would have to work for peanuts. Isn't there a better way?
T. Rex, "to keep them here".
I know pays cuts are necessary but it seems that manufacturing jobs are going to people who make that in a day, if they're lucky.

Obviously no one has a better answer, you just want to make Dems look stupid.

I'm not worried about that, you've cornered the market.

The manufacturing overseas is profitable until the workers there start demanding an increase in pay.
Just like Japan.

It 'seems to me (again) that these corporations will continue to seek out the most destitute in order to preserve profits. Where does that leaves us?
I'm thinking socialism.
The last GM I bought the motor cracked at about 15,000 miles.
I had an extended warranty so they fixed it.
It happened again within three months, they didn't want to pay for it until I threatened to take them to court.
Great customer service.
Glad your Ford isn't a lemon, yet.

Just looking for reasonable ideas, not a conversation with a table.



Answer
Ford is paying attentio to where people are buying cars. Dosen't it make sense to start developing their presence in India and China - which are likely to turn into larger car markets than the US?

BTW - do you really think that we have seen the last of the GM bailouts?

Which is higher - # of gun deaths in the US last year, or people killed in auto accidents over the last year?

Q. Hint - it's not even close. By that account should we not get rid of evil cars? Would be great for saving the earth too. Two can play this game


Answer
Save your breath trying to reason with democrats. Common sense tells everyone but liberals and democrats that ALL human predators dearly hope their targets are unarmed, whether the predator is a home invader, Stalin or Hitler:
-Thomas Jefferson, "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776: ââLaws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Even pacifists like Mahatma Gandhi "got it," saying: "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." An Autobiography, pg 446.

But liberals and democrats always religiously cling to their dogmatic faith that âmore guns leads to more crimeâ no matter how much evidence you shove in their face, including:

-9/27/01 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/156671⦠are deeply rooted within Swiss culture but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept"; âIn addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons.â

-1/15/03 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/26568⦠BBC: "âIf guns are outlawed only outlaws will have gunsâ" may prove prophetic. Gun crime in the UK is soaring even though it has the strictest gun control laws of any democracy.â
Nine years later: 12/17/12 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-⦠UKâs violent crime rate per 100,000 people is 2,034; USâs is 466.

-2/2/11 Daily Telegraph, about piracy: âThe safest ships of all [sailing in the Gulf of Aden] are flying the Russian flag: armed guards aboard them simply blow pirate boats out of the water and leave any survivors to drown. Attacks on Russian vessels have abruptly ceased.â

-7/25/12 http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-⦠1950 all but one mass-murders in the U. S. where more than three people died were committed in gun-free zones. The Gun-Free Schools Zone Act was passed in 1990.

-9/25/12 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb-â¦
âBut almost 30 years after the law [which mandates that all households own at least one firearm for self-protection] was passed, it is still in place and still popular, not least because Kennesawâs crime rate has remained disproportionately low, even as the townâs population swelled from 5,000 in 1982 to almost 35,000 now. According to the latest FBI statistics, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes â mainly robberies and aggravated assaults â during 2008. In other similar-sized local towns the figures were much higher â 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. For property crimes â largely burglaries and thefts â Kennesaw recorded 555 while Dalton had 1,124 and Hinesville 1,802.â

-11/23/12 http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/⦠2006-2011 gun purchases in Virginia increased 73%. During the same period gun-related crimes fell 24%.

-1/6/13 http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20â¦According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, the firearm crime rate dropped from 6 victims per 1,000 residents in 1994 to 1.4 victims per 1,000 residents in 2009. This has occurred as more and more citizens have armed themselves under right-to-carry State laws. While major crimes show continuing decline in those States, this phenomenon parallels a major crime rise in heavily gun-controlled cities.

-U. S. Department of Justice http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf: 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007; a household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries. [meaning the police didnât show up in time]
-----
As to the democrat mantra, âCall 911â:

-In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, âpolice personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . . [A] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.â In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled âTHERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE AGAINST BEING MURDERED BY A CRIMINALS OR MADMEN.â

-âWhen seconds count, the police are only minutes awayâ




Powered by Yahoo! Answers

No comments:

Post a Comment