[lbo-talk] help

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Thu Sep 27 09:02:31 PDT 2007


Eric wrote:
>
>> CB: This isn't exactly what you mean, but I think the UAW is taking
>> over running the pension.
>>
>
> Don't you mean the retiree health care fund?
>
> This, I think, is the single most horrible thing about this deal. Not
> only did the UAW abandon any sort of class solidarity by caving on
> the health care issue -- thus helping to ensure that 50 million
> people stay uninsured and more underinsured -- but by insisting on a
> self-managed fund, GM got the union to start thinking like a
> portfolio manager. So now the union's primary metric for success will
> be GM's stock price. Lovely.

The union already thinks like a portfolio manager so this isn't really a change. Most of what I've read from the union is that this wasn't even a big point of contention. Really how is this so different from members of this list who have investments for their future retirements? I'll accept that I must either own land (something I oppose in principal) or must pay rent (something else I oppose in principal) since there is not much open in the way of other viable options. One could live on a boat and anchor offshore never renting a slip but how realistic is that? I do oppose the idea of capital ownership of corporations and unlike ones living arrangements it is relatively easy to put this into practice by simply not tying my fate to those of the capitalist class directly by purchasing capital shares of ownership. Indirectly of course our economy relies on this arrangement so we all benefit or suffer to some degree by this arrangement but to do so indirectly is quite different than to do so directly. I've never understood how one could be anti-capital while maintaining a portfolio. A bit like being an anti-slavery slaveholder.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list