[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Profile/Gallery]
, Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:58:46
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
Kodak embraced digital photography technology before most others did. They were making digital cameras (in collaboration with both Nikon and Canon) long before Nikon or Canon had their own digital cameras. For a time, Kodak was the leader in both high end digital sensors and consumer digital camera sales volume. However, the fundamental problem with Kodak is that it never found a critical rent-seeking position in digital photography like it previously had with film lab chemical sales, or what Nikon and Canon have with lens systems. Contrary to many other companies that can play and thrive in a low-margin digital photography market, Kodak as a company does not have the corporate culture/organization or even financial/debt structure that can survive in a low margin environment. The massive dividend payout in the 90's and 00's essentially amounted to a winding down of the company. Most shareholders (including funds and institutional holders) had bought the company stocks as income investment: "widow and orphan stock," with significant dividend yield paying to individuals as well as institutions that need/expect the cash flow. That's just not the basis for a high tech company when the photography industry suddenly became a high tech / consumer electronics one instead of the old staid chemical / consumer staples.
As for GM's value a munition maker in future war, that's got to be a joke. GM may have to change to a munitions maker in the future simply because it can no longer compete in the market place against privately owned companies . . . just like the original VW under the leadership of Gauleiters never managed to sell a single production car to German consumers before the end of WWII: it could not compete against Ford Europe or GM Europe. The munition contracts came into being because the German government had to justify the continued existence of VW after their leadership invented such an albatross.
Given the extremely poor performance of armored vehicle in combat since the widespread use of shaped-charge munitions, besides "MAD" with nukes for any good sized country that can afford to buy thousands of tanks and aircrafts (orders smaller than that are already handled by specialized munition makers), it's highly doubtful mass produciton consumer car makers will have much of an input in future wars. Even if they do, the Ford, Toyota and Honda plants in the US will turn out vehicles more efficiently than GM plants. Yes, those Toyota and Honda plants in the US will of course be nationalized if they can be put to produce military vehicles in a war . . . just like both Soviets and Germans nationalized Ford and GM plants in their respective countries for war effort. Comes to think of it, most of GM's most modern production facilities will be making weapons for some other countries, if their outputs are found useful for the next war.
The real reason why GM was saved by the government was for a very simple reason: it's not even the Union votes, as they are probably out-numbered by anti-Union votes due to the bailout. The bailout took place because money handed out to union members can see a significant portion immediately laundered back as union dues and political contributions derived the mandatory union dues (and equivalent fees forcibly collected from non-union workers working at the union plants). It's simply political money laundering at taxpayer expense.
posted by 75.67.1...
, Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:54:30, Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:04:44, Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:58:46, Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:44:26, Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:31:43, Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:04:20
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
