GM to make e-bikes
#76
Senior Member
GM was lackadaisical, maybe even had a bogus warranty system, 20+ years ago, but today they are even further behind... There are now car companies/makes out there that will pick up the car, fix it/maintain it for 5 years and everything is covered... I suspect GM will go broke again … JMO as to GM and their E-Bike, Ha, Ha, that is funny...
#77
Prefers Cicero
That's not their role in society. A corporation's role is to make money and if the management or any employees actually try to act ethically or altruistically and it hurts the bottom line, they will be fired and/or sued. Proponents will say corporations contribute to the common good by providing employment and products we want (which is a good thing) but there is no mechanism for any internal checks on any spinoff harm they might do. Ergo, it is up to the rest of us to externally regulate them with laws, boycotts, public shaming etc. to ensure the damage they do in pursuit of profit is limited.
#78
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
just look st the stock reports. If GM sales fall off Toyota sales pick up. Holes created by a falling off of US manufacturers is picked up by foreign companies. The markets in other countries far exceed the markets here. We have about 3.3 million people to sell to. China and India have close to 3 billion combined.
I don't think it's just the foreignness factor that makes companies want to maximize sales in certain markets without concern for consequences, such as congestion and sprawl. Everyone has their own vision of how to live well away from the bustle/noise/fumes/greasy-grime etc. of motor vehicles. People farm out their maintenance to mechanics, tire-changes and battery-replacement to roadside assistants, oil-changes to speedy-lube places, etc. No one wants to do that work themselves, just like they don't want to deep fry their own french fries and chicken, but people are desperate for jobs and money so they do it for them. Likewise, people don't want to live in high-traffic areas, so that drives up the value of housing in relatively peaceful neighborhoods, suburban or otherwise. Pleasant cities in Europe and elsewhere with less automotive traffic are also more sought-after and property costs a lot there as well. The overall economic message it sends is to build as many cars as possible and jam-pack them into areas you don't want to be in, so that you can afford to live in other areas where you do want to be. It's not a responsible business ethic.
Public opinion is not just what advocates say it is. Public opinion is how people vote with their wallets. Besides since when is a minimalist interested in public opinion?
#79
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
That's not their role in society. A corporation's role is to make money and if the management or any employees actually try to act ethically or altruistically and it hurts the bottom line, they will be fired and/or sued. Proponents will say corporations contribute to the common good by providing employment and products we want (which is a good thing) but there is no mechanism for any internal checks on any spinoff harm they might do. Ergo, it is up to the rest of us to externally regulate them with laws, boycotts, public shaming etc. to ensure the damage they do in pursuit of profit is limited.
#80
Prefers Cicero
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,812
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1591 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,015 Times
in
570 Posts
The problems we see in corporate behavior are not a function of the theoretical role of the corporation in society, they are a function of avarice in man preventing the corporation from fulfilling its intended role.
#82
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Maybe, but then they will use their money to pay other people like us to police them in a way that actually lets them abuse the system to get more money to afford more abuse; and they'll claim it's not their fault by blaming the police they pay to look the other way.
#84
Prefers Cicero
The problem is that corporations themselves have no means or motivation to stop that avarice from taking over, and instead have motivation and means to enable it.
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
this is one of those times I have to agree. They are doing what they were designed to do. When miners discover gold they will follow the vein till the gold runs out. As long as most people continue to purchase a product someone will provide that product.
#86
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
And if they see that some people are trying to lobby government to protect the gold from total exploitation, they'll buy the government to keep themselves in business. Buying government is just a matter of supply and demand, right?
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,093
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1566 Post(s)
Liked 1,163 Times
in
591 Posts
'Smell that? That smell hanging over the whole thread? I love the smell of P&R in the morning ... smells like ... futility.'
#88
Prefers Cicero
Personally, I think a thread on whether GM is sincere in wanting to promote e-bikes and ease downtown traffic congestion, or are just playing us, is completely relevant to LCF, but if you disagree, start a thread on a topic you think is more appropriate.
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,093
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1566 Post(s)
Liked 1,163 Times
in
591 Posts
I've expressed my view about this thread, as I am entitled to do, and tried to do so in a light-hearted manner. I am not obligated to do anything further.
#90
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times
in
1,031 Posts
#91
Prefers Cicero
#92
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
I wonder if they will be barred at some point from getting into the alternative-transportation business because of conflict of interest. Basically these scooter/bike share buy-ins are like mergers between different kinds of media outlets, etc., which are scrutinized pretty closely. For some reason it doesn't seem like automakers get the same critical attention that media does, maybe because people are still getting used to the idea of 'new transportation' the way they had to get used to the idea of 'new media' when digital recording, IT, and internet were emerging.
Last edited by tandempower; 11-13-18 at 05:45 PM.
#93
Banned
Smokescreen...
Forget History? GM was among the corporations responsible
for destroying rail based public transportation,
Forcing people into buses they made, or private cars,
to be stuck behind those buses..
With the carbon particulate by products of diesel combustion..
blown back at you.
Now PR has them re-positioning themselves as multi modal proponents,
with a product to sell?
for destroying rail based public transportation,
Forcing people into buses they made, or private cars,
to be stuck behind those buses..
With the carbon particulate by products of diesel combustion..
blown back at you.
Now PR has them re-positioning themselves as multi modal proponents,
with a product to sell?
#94
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Forget History? GM was among the corporations responsible
for destroying rail based public transportation,
Forcing people into buses they made, or private cars,
to be stuck behind those buses..
With the carbon particulate by products of diesel combustion..
blown back at you.
Now PR has them re-positioning themselves as multi modal proponents,
with a product to sell?
for destroying rail based public transportation,
Forcing people into buses they made, or private cars,
to be stuck behind those buses..
With the carbon particulate by products of diesel combustion..
blown back at you.
Now PR has them re-positioning themselves as multi modal proponents,
with a product to sell?
Maybe the failure of the bus system resulted more from consumer fault than corporate fault. It is possible, after all, that GM would have been perfectly happy to have all the public-transit riders who used streetcars go on using buses instead, and maybe that would have been a more cost-efficient way of maintaining public transportation than the streetcar system. This is just speculation, of course, since I really don't know much about the details of what happened.
#95
Senior Member
It would be interesting to know what the ultimate intent behind the elimination of the streetcars and rails was. Maybe it was to subvert public transportation and force everyone into personal vehicle ownership, but maybe they really thought that it would be more efficient to use buses with standardized motors and parts shared with other vehicles.
Maybe the failure of the bus system resulted more from consumer fault than corporate fault. It is possible, after all, that GM would have been perfectly happy to have all the public-transit riders who used streetcars go on using buses instead, and maybe that would have been a more cost-efficient way of maintaining public transportation than the streetcar system. This is just speculation, of course, since I really don't know much about the details of what happened.
Maybe the failure of the bus system resulted more from consumer fault than corporate fault. It is possible, after all, that GM would have been perfectly happy to have all the public-transit riders who used streetcars go on using buses instead, and maybe that would have been a more cost-efficient way of maintaining public transportation than the streetcar system. This is just speculation, of course, since I really don't know much about the details of what happened.
#96
☢
The U.S. was open and vast and nobody considered the future of our natural resources. Not congested and compact like it was in Europe.
#97
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times
in
329 Posts
It would be interesting to know what the ultimate intent behind the elimination of the streetcars and rails was. Maybe it was to subvert public transportation and force everyone into personal vehicle ownership, but maybe they really thought that it would be more efficient to use buses with standardized motors and parts shared with other vehicles.
Maybe the failure of the bus system resulted more from consumer fault than corporate fault. It is possible, after all, that GM would have been perfectly happy to have all the public-transit riders who used streetcars go on using buses instead, and maybe that would have been a more cost-efficient way of maintaining public transportation than the streetcar system. This is just speculation, of course, since I really don't know much about the details of what happened.
Maybe the failure of the bus system resulted more from consumer fault than corporate fault. It is possible, after all, that GM would have been perfectly happy to have all the public-transit riders who used streetcars go on using buses instead, and maybe that would have been a more cost-efficient way of maintaining public transportation than the streetcar system. This is just speculation, of course, since I really don't know much about the details of what happened.
B) Do you really think it has been a 120 year conspiracy?
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
#98
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Idk about a 'conspiracy,' but what I do think happens is that the critics of companies/industries overemphasize the sinister intent to the extent that it doesn't really capture how the business people involved actually thought about the situation. E.g. I was watching Supersize Me recently, and they were interviewing some industry lobbyist, who said that they wanted to provide more education about nutrition so that people could make better choices, but that their job as food suppliers was to offer the broadest range of food options possible. Now, that might have been sincere or that might have been a line to whitewash the practice of adding lots of sugar to foods to weigh them down with cheap filler that tastes good to uncritical consumers.
Anyway, with regard to GM, I think I could do research and find some accounts that are very harsh on GM as systematically attacking public transit and other accounts that say GM was just realizing a common-dream of personal automobiles for everyone because that was what people wanted and thought would make for a good future before they realized congestion and sprawl would turn into a nightmare.
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
I have done some research on it, but I should do more.
Idk about a 'conspiracy,' but what I do think happens is that the critics of companies/industries overemphasize the sinister intent to the extent that it doesn't really capture how the business people involved actually thought about the situation. E.g. I was watching Supersize Me recently, and they were interviewing some industry lobbyist, who said that they wanted to provide more education about nutrition so that people could make better choices, but that their job as food suppliers was to offer the broadest range of food options possible. Now, that might have been sincere or that might have been a line to whitewash the practice of adding lots of sugar to foods to weigh them down with cheap filler that tastes good to uncritical consumers.
Anyway, with regard to GM, I think I could do research and find some accounts that are very harsh on GM as systematically attacking public transit and other accounts that say GM was just realizing a common-dream of personal automobiles for everyone because that was what people wanted and thought would make for a good future before they realized congestion and sprawl would turn into a nightmare.
Idk about a 'conspiracy,' but what I do think happens is that the critics of companies/industries overemphasize the sinister intent to the extent that it doesn't really capture how the business people involved actually thought about the situation. E.g. I was watching Supersize Me recently, and they were interviewing some industry lobbyist, who said that they wanted to provide more education about nutrition so that people could make better choices, but that their job as food suppliers was to offer the broadest range of food options possible. Now, that might have been sincere or that might have been a line to whitewash the practice of adding lots of sugar to foods to weigh them down with cheap filler that tastes good to uncritical consumers.
Anyway, with regard to GM, I think I could do research and find some accounts that are very harsh on GM as systematically attacking public transit and other accounts that say GM was just realizing a common-dream of personal automobiles for everyone because that was what people wanted and thought would make for a good future before they realized congestion and sprawl would turn into a nightmare.
It seems someone other than GM has to be concerned with the connection between congestion and sprawl. GM has to be concerned with what the customers want to buy not what non customers think.
#100
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
From a financial perspective of investors living elsewhere, the sprawl development is a good thing, because all the road building and development renders concrete sales, contracts to build on the concrete, new business opportunities in the space built, etc. But from the perspective of people who moved out to a rural area to get away from bustle, it's a nightmare. Everyone wants the bustle of business and traffic to happen far from their own backyard.
When I used to live in larger urban centers congestion was more or less a constant. Worse during rush hour but there all day. Think Seattle, LA, Las Vegas, San Diego. Once you get into a position you can move out, “sprawl” if you will, congestion goes away. For the last 20 years a car may drive by my house once every hour maybe two. Not congestion by any means. I can drive from LA to Oklahoma City and only be find congestion in the urban centers about every 100 to 200 miles when in Texas.
It seems someone other than GM has to be concerned with the connection between congestion and sprawl. GM has to be concerned with what the customers want to buy not what non customers think.
If everyone denies responsibility because they want to shift the burden to others, then nothing ever changes for the better. Everyone just keeps passing the buck, so to speak.