You don't go to the heart of the matter. You contest the source, the color of the shoes of the messenger, the flexibility of the tail of the crocodile.
You were saying what? You were saying that I need to know about business. Then I said to you, go tell this to The Economist, they say similar things about GM.
What you are saying now? Read it again!
You are saying: Well, it is not that The Economist is ignorant about business, they are old man’s club, or they have prejudice.
Now read again what we've discussed here about refineries. Why you, in the same line of thought, doesn't make a connection between, GM, The Economist AND oil refineries, since you think they are flour out of the same bag?
You don't? Because you have some selective way of thinking, while you keep saying: Whatever I don't agree with, and for which I don't find a way of counter argue, I start talking about the sex of the angels.
All that said:
And I am teaching that because you can't synthesize such developments out of what you're seeing:
Car industry will move from OECD countries. The US and Europe will become, as car making is concerned, what the UK today only make specialty cars like F1 and military vehicles for which price is no objection.
Car making will move to Asia, Brazil, and South Africa...
Ford and GM merging will be a last resource option that will be contemplated.
Now give me your script:
Say,
Elmat you are wrong, car making is going to become such and such...
Let me know if you are master in the art of the long view...
You see only other's prejudice interefering with ones judgement. You forget about your own prejudice interference.
With whom have you lera to discuss? AC Flyer? Take a a look at MQ, he's been tamed here and he has forgotten a lot of his prejudice and he improved a lot :-) |
