Hollywood Kaput

[richardmurray]

I have placed my reply in my email newsletter, 7/30 edition. But I will leave the article for you. 

It is long so... 

https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2386&type=status

 

 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

I wouldn't say the automobile industry "failed" in the U.S.A.....it was intentionally moved and displaced.

It thrives in SOME parts of the U.S.A. as it does in some other parts of the planet.

The reasons the automobile industry isn't as powerful or claims the high percentage of workers it once did in the U.S. are several:

1. As unions claimed more power in the automotive and manufacturing industry in general, the owners and management felt that it would be more profitable to move most of the plants to third world nations where the workers were desperate and willing to work for less money, didn't have union protection, and didn't have a government that would protect them from unfair labor practices.

2. As with many other jobs, when more and more Black workers started joining the labor force and getting good paying jobs with benefits and union protection....a lot of racist Whites decided to commit financial suicide by getting rid of the good paying blue-collar jobs that even most of THEM relied on to make a good living.

Racism is a very powerful motivator.

Most White people would rather HAPPILY live in poverty than to live in a society where both them AND Black people are doing financially well and EQUAL to them.
Their main focus is being on top and staying ahead of Black people.
As long as Black people collectively are doing worse....they don't mind suffering a bit themselves.

3. Most people can't afford to buy new cars like they used to.
I remember as a kid, it was a pretty regular thing for an adult to buy a brand new car every 4 or 5 years.

Infact, in Michigan before 1985 when the factory jobs were plentiful....it was common for most Black adults to be married with their own house and car by 30 years old!
If you were 35 or 40 living in an apartment and didn't have a car.....people thought something was "wrong" with you, lol.

 

 

"How old he is?
And he ain't got no house?
He ain't got no family yet?
Is the nigga on dope or something???
What's wrong wit' em?"

Boy have things changed since then.
Black men are doing good to stay out of JAIL now a days, and if he manages to get his own apartment without a roomate or girlfriend helping him out with the rent.....he's the talk of the neighborhood....lol.

But back when I was a kid, if you had a car over 10 years old...it was called a "hoopty" and people often made fun of you.
Today, so many adults are so poor and scraping by that they not only don't have cars but most of the cars they DO have are used and of older models.
They patch on them and keep them running....especially most Latinos.

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1you have your views. 

If I own a firm, and it has a 90% global market share with total global saturation where the usa automobile industry at one time had and through my management goes to 50%  and a total absence in many geographies, I will call it a failure. The whole point of managing a firm is to make money regardless of the environment. 

I apologize but I treat all races fairly. Financial race is clear cut like all others. If you are a fiscal capitalist the goal is to make profit, if you fail to make profit it is called failure. In the same way, the goal of socialism is the efficient use of resources. If resources are used inefficienctly it is called failure. Ala why I said and say the soviet union or the chinese failed to be effective socialist. 

 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

On 7/20/2023 at 10:05 PM, richardmurray said:

@Pioneer1you have your views. 

If I own a firm, and it has a 90% global market share with total global saturation where the usa automobile industry at one time had and through my management goes to 50%  and a total absence in many geographies, I will call it a failure. The whole point of managing a firm is to make money regardless of the environment. 

I apologize but I treat all races fairly. Financial race is clear cut like all others. If you are a fiscal capitalist the goal is to make profit, if you fail to make profit it is called failure. In the same way, the goal of socialism is the efficient use of resources. If resources are used inefficienctly it is called failure. Ala why I said and say the soviet union or the chinese failed to be effective socialist. 

 

 

 

Well, I'm not certain about the entire former Soviet Union....but I don't think Russia OR China are actually serious about being Socialist period, right now.
I'm not sure if I'd call someone who didn't accomplish something they didn't want to do in the first place a "failure"....lol.

Dropping from 90% profit to 50% a failure?
Seems to me as long as you're making ANY type of actual profit....that means your overhead is taken care of so you can stay afloat and coast along until times get better.

What's been going on now for the past few decades, those who run the economic sector have been playing games with the people of the U.S. by giving out deceptive reports that lead people to think that these corporations are losing money when infact they are still raking in BILLIONS.

For example....
A firm could have earned $5 billion of profit in 2020 but in 2021 earned only $1 Billion in profit.
They still came out ahead with 1 BILLION DOLLARS profit to split among them holders!
But let them tell it......they gotta lay off thousands of people because they took an 80% "loss" in profit/revenue in 2021.

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1 I will speak to your example

 

well, 1 billion from 5 billion is 20% of 5 billion so that is an 80% loss of profit between years, which is a negative... a failure.   

And the holders will be angry that in 2020 they could split 5 billion among themselves while in 2021 they could only split 1 billion, that is a huge difference in all earnest. 

In defense of your example, your correct, the firm doesn't have to lay off the common workers but the reality is, the administrative members and board members who are getting cumulatively a billion or more in their collective salaries of fiscal dues are not going to cut their wealth for others. This was and is the whole fiscal capitalist selling point against socialism for near 100 years. In socialism the executives/administratives/ board members are supposed to earn as much as the common laborer in the firm, thus the firms revenue handles healthcare/utilities/transportation external financial forces.  But in fiscal capitalism, said group can make a billion or more a year collectively and cut the workers throat to find the financial balance in the firm. 

 

[Troy]

@Pioneer1 i would not be so hard on people who don’t buy a new car every 5 years. the average car on the road today is a hoopty, as the average car is more than 12 years old. 
 

The average price of a new car today is twice what it was in 1970.

 

 Houses are also much more experience.

 

Today everyone in the average home has to work for a halfway decent lifestyle (adequate shelter, clothing, food and a free amenities like a cell phone or going to the movies)

 

50 years ago a single highschool educated man could afford to provide for an entire family. 
 

2 hours ago, richardmurray said:

well, 1 billion from 5 billion is 20% of 5 billion so that is an 80% loss of profit between years, which is a negative... a failure

“failure” would not be an accurate description, as the company is profitable and given the business environment, earning $1B could be considered a success.

 

But i get Wall Street wants to see an increase in profits year over year, but the context matters. Even if the company loses money — even for a decade or more does not make it a failure, consider Amazon.

 

…. So i agree with @Pioneer1 on this one 

 

 

[richardmurray]

@Troy  great as I told  @Pioneer1

Quote

you have your views. 

If I own a firm, and it has a....

 

[Pioneer1]

8 hours ago, Troy said:

 

 

…. So i agree with @Pioneer1 on this one 

 

 

Well it's about time.
Now we're making progress......lol