Oldsmobile joins Plymouth: RIP

Geoff wrote:
>
> > Unfortunatley, in a large sense, ethics can't be taught - a person
> > either has them internally or doesn't. However, a class on the subject
> > might make them aware of unintended consequences that will get them
> > thinking and may make them decide to grow some balls to do the right
> > thing in tough situations (even if their career may suffer for it).
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
>
> Bill,
>
> I think ethics ARE taught -- when you're under 7 years of age. It's all
> about the behavior your parents model for you. If you are lucky enough to
> see them trying to do the right thing most of the time, you'll likely grow
> up to be an ethical person.
>
> Ethics cannot be taught at the college level, but they can be reinforced.
> You can show basically ethical college students what is expected of them in
> the business world, and they will internalize it and become more able to
> exhibit ethical behavior in their working lives.
>
> --Geoff

I don't disagree with you, except sometimes when people see the
consequences (as I said, those unintended ones) of what has happened to
others as a result of seemingly harmless acts that wrecks not only the
lives of the person who didn't realize what the consequences of his
actions might be, but of his totally innocent children, spouse, etc.,
and people he doesn't even know, they can actually change their
outlook. Very similar to the old saying "Those who don't know history
are destined to repeat it".

I think the philosophy about the purpose of laws applies here. Here it
is in three steps:

(1) Some people will do the right thing whether there is a law requiring
it or not (i.e., they do not steal, or rape, or kill innocent people
simply because it is wrong, meaning they follow the sense of right and
wrong that God put into every human being before birth.

(2) Some people will do the right thing only if there is a law requiring
it and there is a reasonable chance that they will get caught and
punished or humiliated if they violate it.

(3) Some people will do whatever they want to do whether there is a law
or not. This is what prisons are for.

As I get older, I get the impression that most people fall into the 2nd
category, and as time goes on, it becomes more that way. Very few
people are in category (1).

The Lockheed Brake case is a perfect example. The people doing the
testing let the pressures of costs and making the schedule by having the
brakes pass the qualification testing push them to do the wrong thing.
If they had consciences, they rationalized what they were doing. If you
had told them ahead of time that a pilot was going to be killed, a plane
lost, your company's reputation seriously damaged, etc., etc., dut to
what they were getting ready to do, they defintitely would not have done
it.

If the NASA officials and the Morton-Thiokol managers had known that the
Challenger would explode and kill 7 astronauts, plus all the other
untold ramifications, do you think they would have launched in spite of
what the engineers were telling them? Obviously not. In their own
minds, they let a certain threat of loss of future business for
scrubbing the launch outweigh the (in their minds) remote possibility
that the engineers were right - after all, we all know how anal and
overly cautious engineers are - the chances of that o-ring being a real
problem were so slim. IOW, one path leads to certain moderate
consequences, the other has a small chance of leading to inestimable
dire consequences, so you go with door #1, and, in that case, lose. An
ethics class may present these or other real life cases to some future
engineer or manager and totally shape how they conduct themselves during
their career. They will be less likely to play on the roll of the dice
especially when other people's lives, reputations, families, and
fortunes are at stake. Yet managers are highly rewarded for being "risk
takers".

Of course the other side of the coin is that you can get a bureaucrat
who wants to follow the rules when clearly not following them in a
particular situation is clearly the right thing to do. That's what
makes life such a challenge, and why often people are made to feel that
they are in a no-win situation.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Mike wrote:
>
> There are many marques that have disappeared over the years, but who cares..
> it gives older people something to nostalgically look back at, something to
> collect, something to buy and sell at Barrett Jackson.. GM chose to cut a
> marque that maybe one time overlapped into Cadillac and Buick product lines
> no doubt for reasons of economy.. so now they have Caddy at the top, Buick
> in the middle, and Chevy bringing up the rear.. Olds and Buick both have a
> history spanning a little over 100 years.. so they chose to keep the Buick
> brand.. good for them.. and for the record, I watched a news item on tv in
> the last few days where one of the reasons given for the demise was that
> Oldsmobile cars were bought mainly by older people that had always been
> loyal to the marque..

....along with the cliché "This is not your father's Oldsmobile" that GM
used in their own ads.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Geoff wrote:
>
>>>Unfortunatley, in a large sense, ethics can't be taught - a person
>>>either has them internally or doesn't. However, a class on the subject
>>>might make them aware of unintended consequences that will get them
>>>thinking and may make them decide to grow some balls to do the right
>>>thing in tough situations (even if their career may suffer for it).
>>>
>>>Bill Putney
>>>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>address with "x")
>>
>>Bill,
>>
>>I think ethics ARE taught -- when you're under 7 years of age. It's all
>>about the behavior your parents model for you. If you are lucky enough to
>>see them trying to do the right thing most of the time, you'll likely grow
>>up to be an ethical person.
>>
>>Ethics cannot be taught at the college level, but they can be reinforced.
>>You can show basically ethical college students what is expected of them in
>>the business world, and they will internalize it and become more able to
>>exhibit ethical behavior in their working lives.
>>
>>--Geoff
>
>
> I don't disagree with you, except sometimes when people see the
> consequences (as I said, those unintended ones) of what has happened to
> others as a result of seemingly harmless acts that wrecks not only the
> lives of the person who didn't realize what the consequences of his
> actions might be, but of his totally innocent children, spouse, etc.,
> and people he doesn't even know, they can actually change their
> outlook. Very similar to the old saying "Those who don't know history
> are destined to repeat it".
>
> I think the philosophy about the purpose of laws applies here. Here it
> is in three steps:
>
> (1) Some people will do the right thing whether there is a law requiring
> it or not (i.e., they do not steal, or rape, or kill innocent people
> simply because it is wrong, meaning they follow the sense of right and
> wrong that God put into every human being before birth.
>
> (2) Some people will do the right thing only if there is a law requiring
> it and there is a reasonable chance that they will get caught and
> punished or humiliated if they violate it.
>
> (3) Some people will do whatever they want to do whether there is a law
> or not. This is what prisons are for.
>
> As I get older, I get the impression that most people fall into the 2nd
> category, and as time goes on, it becomes more that way. Very few
> people are in category (1).
>
> The Lockheed Brake case is a perfect example. The people doing the
> testing let the pressures of costs and making the schedule by having the
> brakes pass the qualification testing push them to do the wrong thing.
> If they had consciences, they rationalized what they were doing. If you
> had told them ahead of time that a pilot was going to be killed, a plane
> lost, your company's reputation seriously damaged, etc., etc., dut to
> what they were getting ready to do, they defintitely would not have done
> it.

I don't remember this one. Which airplane was involved?


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:

> > The Lockheed Brake case is a perfect example. The people doing the
> > testing let the pressures of costs and making the schedule by having the
> > brakes pass the qualification testing push them to do the wrong thing.
> > If they had consciences, they rationalized what they were doing. If you
> > had told them ahead of time that a pilot was going to be killed, a plane
> > lost, your company's reputation seriously damaged, etc., etc., dut to
> > what they were getting ready to do, they defintitely would not have done
> > it.
>
> I don't remember this one. Which airplane was involved?
>
> Matt

To be honest, Matt, I couldn't tell you. I did a term paper for the
ethics class at VA Tech in about 1976 or 77, so it would have had to be
for a plane built before that.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Nomen Nescio > wrote in message >. ..
> The following is copywrited by me, N.N.:
>
> My grandpa told me about the Rocket 88. It was the best V-8 and it was all
> Oldsmobile. Hooked up with the Hydramatic ("Hydro") single fluid coupling
> automatic, and stuck in a '51 Ford, you could lay down 100 feet of rubber
> in front of Venice High School. That's big clouds of blue smoke off your
> rear and that is impressive in anybody's book.
>
> We might fall in love with our favorite cars and put them on a pedestal and
> spend hours waxing and polishing them. But let it be known there is no
> sentimentality among the auto makers. To them, its strictly dollars and
> sense. Look at it this way: If a '57 Chevy was sentimental to GM,
> Chevrolet would still be making 'em, right?
>
> If the car companies don't care about the '57 Chevy or anything else, why
> should we? I used to care when I was in high school and my car meant
> everything to me. Well, almost everything. But these days, my car is
> like a Frigid-Aire, just a thing to use up and throw away when I'm done
> with it. Don't fall in love with your car, no matter what make and model.
> Has anybody here seen a DeLorean in person? I have and its nothing
> special. Its not valuable because they made too many of them, maybe
> 20,000. That sounds like a limited production and it was for cars, but its
> a lot because they haven't made 20,000 Rolls Royces in all their history
> and a second hand Rolls isn't worth much either. Just look in the Sunday's
> want ads for a second hand Rolls. You can buy one for $12,000 which isn't
> much since the price new was about $100,000. Besides, a DeLorean is a
> lackluster buggy anyways; just ask the man who owns one.
>
> DeSoto, Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Edsel, LaSalle, & Hupmobile, all those cars
> are gone now forever and ever after. Famous cars too, now history, but no
> use mopping over them and shedding tears. Daimler-Chrysler didn't think
> twice when they dumped the DeSoto, so why should I?

Joke of the day:
How do you pronounce 'Daimler-Chrysler'?
|
|
|
|
With a silent 'Chrysler'.

Bill Putney wrote:

>
> Mike wrote:
>
>>There are many marques that have disappeared over the years, but who cares..
>>it gives older people something to nostalgically look back at, something to
>>collect, something to buy and sell at Barrett Jackson.. GM chose to cut a
>>marque that maybe one time overlapped into Cadillac and Buick product lines
>>no doubt for reasons of economy.. so now they have Caddy at the top, Buick
>>in the middle, and Chevy bringing up the rear.. Olds and Buick both have a
>>history spanning a little over 100 years.. so they chose to keep the Buick
>>brand.. good for them.. and for the record, I watched a news item on tv in
>>the last few days where one of the reasons given for the demise was that
>>Oldsmobile cars were bought mainly by older people that had always been
>>loyal to the marque..
>
>
> ...along with the cliché "This is not your father's Oldsmobile" that GM
> used in their own ads.

And every time I heard it, I'd think. "God I wish it was."

Where did they go wrong ? IMHO when GM went to corporate motors and the
only differences in the cars were the front & rear ends and maybe the
interiors were different .

By the way I really loved my Dads '68 Cutlass Supreme. To bad they weren't
my Dads Olds anymore !! Bad ad campaign .

Terry
God Bless Our Troops
http://www.nanettes-place.com/terryspontiac.htm



"RON" > wrote in message
...
> Olds was considered to be a test bed for GM. The 1949 Futuramic (?) with
> the rocket 88 was an example. The designer of the engine made a short
> stroke OHV with hollow push rods which was the precurser of the Chevy
> small block. Cadillac also used a version of the same engine at the same
> time.
> Olds had the hydramatic transmission, Rocket 88 engine, autronic eye, I
> think the first A/C in GM cars, 12 volt ignition in 1953. Great
> engineers. Where did they go wrong?
>

>
>By the way I really loved my Dads '68 Cutlass Supreme. To bad they weren't
>my Dads Olds anymore !! Bad ad campaign .


GM was trying to appeal to a younger
group of buyers with that ad campaign.
The average age of an Olds buyer
was around 55+ and they wanted to
get it much lower.

Sales of Olds cars have been declining
for many years. Painful as it is for many
people, GM made the right decision by
dumping the brand.

>So if you are in a high volume,
>low price market, then you want younger buyers. If you are selling high
>price products, then often the older market is your better bet.


In the case of Oldsmobile, they were
still losing market share with older buyers and not attracting enough younger
buyers.
supposed

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Art wrote:

> You guys seem to feel that unethical MBA's are screwing things up. I
> disagree. I believe that stupid over-confident people who are too dumb
> to know what they don't know do the greatest damage to our free
> enterprise system. They sound good, interview well, get promoted and
> don't know crap no matter how much schooling they have.

Congratulations: You've just defined the MBA.