The industrial earthquake of PSA in France

[chatelot16]

we come back to it ... if peugeot wants to recover, it must manufacture what customers want

very simple and economical car for some, and high-end car for others ... but no need to make the current average car ... not simple enough and too expensive for some ... not luxurious enough to d other

I find it unfortunate that Peugeot and Citroen all cars are alike: the one who wants a high-end car wants it to be visible: so as peugeot does not make upscale very different from his small car, one who wants a big will buy a mercedes or a BMW that is not to be confused with 106 ... look a little fargot: impossible to recognize a small one big: it seems to me a catastrophic marketing error

and the one who wants a simple car does not want an 106 with as much gadget as a mercedes ... he would prefer a little bigger than an 106 but simple

PSA who has 2 brand should have taken the opportunity to clearly separate his model, for example make high-end citroen, and simple model peugeot clearly different appearance

[Did67]

They did it a little bit, with the DS range at Citroën, sold much more expensive than the equivalent Peugeot / Citroen model (C3 or C4 or C5), more "flashy" and more "visible" (on the basis of quite classic mechanics).

With success elsewhere.

And there, even Holland has advertised them!

Globally, it remains a "niche" ...

[Obamot]

If at least [...]

"If at least ..." we paid the raw materials at their fair price !!!

Because while European manufacturers can not sell their garbage cans, at the other end of the world in the mines where we extract the ores that compose them they cut the slab and ask for increases. So we shoot in the pile!


Source: teletext of this day (note the publicity ad for stock market speculation at the bottom of the extract, we walk on the head!) The management of the mine, meanwhile, considers this case "as a public policy issue, rather than a labor relations issue". That gives reason to Philippe Schutt: do not go out of the "fundamentals" ... ...> And let's continue, like President J. Zuma, to be "Shocked and dismayed at this senseless violence ... we believe that there is enough space in our democratic system for any conflict to be resolved through dialogue". Except that in this case, it is the police who shot in the demonstrators!

"If at least ..." the economic world was sticking to the fundamentals of the theoretical model by really applying the laws that are going well ... In terms of preserving the common good in the face of private interests ... I think that's what gives meaning to no democracy ....

"If at least ..." the entire European industry had never initiated the principle of planned obsolescence ...

"If at least ..." etc ...

It's crazy what we could do with "Yes"

[Woodcutter]

Pfffff ....

It's heavy these extended post: "you said that then I say that and tralala .."

Gavant! I do not even read!

Edition: I'm talking about the exchange of the 10 page ...

[Ahmed]

Yes, Woodcutterit's rough, it's crazy, it goes in all directions, in short it's alive!

There is little point in arguing about PSA's strategy for at least two reasons:
- people are paid by PSA for this.
- Microeconomics is not a fractal of macroeconomics.

Marxism is used by two main categories of people: one who is frankly hostile to it because it feels targeted, the other who sees it as a means to achieve the same goal as the previous one; we see that there is convergence at least on one point! The funny thing is that they say they are anti-capitalist!

* People who are generally ignorant of the content of the writings of Marx for not having read them or, even worse, for not having understood them!

[Janic]

to the question of my children on the difference between capitalism and communism, I answered (it is of course a caricature!) "a communist is a capitalist who has no money and a capitalist is a communist who has it. "

[Obamot]

Oulàlàlàlh, we feel the heat here ...! Tssssss ..

Since when, by making so many sociological, political and psychological debates, those who honestly discuss here would have preconceived ideas?
It is not so much the problem of Marxism as the fact of cataloging people because they said this or that, which makes react. But it is rectified.

Philippe Schutt, himself, must surely agree with that

"The emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves"

Perhaps what characterizes capitalism is that we have the right to think about it, but not to shout it too loudly, since it is a personal matter that is inevitably dealt with individually when it comes to "Taking responsibility" ...

I always learned that the capitalist system was looking for "develop the motivation of the man at work". Since the time when it was necessary to bring his coal to warm himself at his place of work, there was still water that went under the bridges ...! And that was true of those who did not care much about what the workers (Taylor, Mc Gregor, etc.) thought of those who cared a little better (Herzberg, Masslow, etc.).

But I do not believe, at any time, that these are the questions that were raised here. But rather, as Philippe rightly said:

oh no, it's demobilization because the battle is lost. Closing a site or a redundancy plan are findings (and consequences) of failure.

There he tells us what:
- he talks about the demobilization of workers (what about their motivation?);
- the bitter observation of management failure (it is unclear how the workers could be held responsible for this failure, Peugeot is not a company ... collectivist). On the other hand, the consequence is scathing: the layoffs dry ...

So if Bucheron, believed at the option of some caricatures, that I was diametrically opposed to everything that says Philippe is wrong, he does exactly what he blames us wrongly. Hey hey ...

Bucheron does not seem to understand that one can not be in agreement with his opponents while respecting them. This is how we progress in complex reasoning. And for that we must express the substance of his thought. It can indeed take a little more space ...

To Philippe: do not take too much into account my sarcasm!

[chatelot16]

There is little point in arguing about PSA's strategy for at least two reasons:
- people are paid by PSA for this.

if it's useless to talk about what should do peugeot do not talk about the rest, there are politicians who are elected for that

when i say what i wish peugeot do I do not have any illusions ... he will not do it

conclusion no matter if peugeot flows a spike

the role of the state should not be to help the flowing companies, but to create conditions so that new ones can exist

the problem is that if I want to make something new, I can not buy the raw material or the machine at a reasonable price: everything is done now to favor the big company already existing

if we put the order in the trade, the creation of small business would be easier, and there would be a multitude of small manufacturer who would make the cars that we want

[Ahmed]

chatelot16 you write:

the problem is that if I want to make something new, I can not buy the raw material or the machines at a reasonable price: everything is done now to favor the big existing companies

in a given sector, at an initial state where there are many small enterprises, the process of "creative destruction" dear to Schumpeter tends towards a concentration within monopolistic structures: therefore, to envisage the emergence of new small units is downright anachronistic because of the established balance of power. Moreover, to reach a sufficient productivity (since the bar is placed always higher) it is necessary a capital sum too important to be paid sufficiently ...
So, either it is not profitable because it is not productive enough, or because the interest charge is too high relative to the gains.

You also say:

if it's useless to talk about what should Peugeot do, do not talk about the rest, there are politicians who are elected for that.

I do not feel concerned by Peugeot, but it is not the case of what decide people who pretend to speak on my behalf!

Obamot, you say:

I have always learned that the capitalist system seeks to "develop the motivation of the man at work"

Normal, since it is through labor that capital can increase; it is not a specificity of capitalism, the slave societies, with "specific" methods motivated their slaves; state capitalism also worked like this: Cf. Stakhanov, and for the same reason.

What is new in our society is that the religion of work coexists with its methodical destruction.
In other words, work has completely phagocytized social relations, but I would be better paid than I would have helped destroy jobs, it is also what Schumpeter had understood, except that it only works if there is always a new possibility to produce, which is not tenable over time.
I understand very well that many are those who are flabbergasted by the achievements of capitalism *, but, as the Buddhists say: "There is only one thing permanent, it is the change"; Francis Fukuyama in his "End of the story"falls into the trap: by a rear projection effect, he sees trial and error (trials, errors) which ultimately lead to the model, according to him, stainless of" liberal democracy ".
It is at the moment when a recipe becomes obsolete that it has the most supporters!
All that is born will die ...
Capitalism is not, fundamentally, a good thing, but many of the faults that are attributed to it are not specific to it, even worse regimes have existed, others much worse could succeed to it if we do not take care of it. ...

For lack of lucidity, lack of imagination, clinging to an outdated model, we risk big.

* between the "more than convinced", those who dream only of reforming it and those who want to put it "at the service of the workers", there is an embarrassment of choice!

[Did67]

Compared to this 11 page:

a) Yes, on econology, a certain number of threads are "useless". Nothing but exchanging points of view.

Are not we also social animals ????

b) I reacted to the title, which "implicitly" ("earthquake") implies a catastrophe ...

I think that the diection of Peugeot was not far-sighted (while they were very opportunistic in the past, from tooling and coffee grinder to ... the car, moped, etc ... )

c) As a citizen, I do not want us to "pump" public aid to maintain a raffiot whose natural destiny, given the mistakes made, is to sink ...

d) It has nothing to do with the necessary social treatment of unemployment.

And here, the economic theories will fight again.

Schematically, on the one hand, "each gets what he deserves, according to the efforts he makes, according to the ideas he has; the others just have to die". On the other, a society where we admit that from time to time it is necessary to give a helping hand to someone who has a problem: health? a less brilliant intelligence? the "fear" of doing? an addiction ? disabilities ??? Should we let them all die ????

The Peugeot worker, who got up in a 2 X 8 for 30 years to go to his job and produce cars in Aulnay, who perhaps, at snack time, made such and such a remark on "innovations", who perhaps even had ideas that "white collar workers" disdained ... This worker, what is he in there ??? A lazy person, who according to the 1st approach only has what he deserves? Someone who is unlucky and whom society has a duty to help, like a cardiac, a handicapped person, a "village idiot" ???

Let everything be clear: I am clearly from the 2 approach. [4 years of volunteering in Africa, without status, without contributions; 12 years in all; because it seemed inconceivable to me to do nothing in the face of malnutrition ... Some who follow other things will find that I drool. I apologize.]