|
|
  
 
Subject:
Re: Obama now owns GM
From: pj <pj4380(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.199.179.29
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:11:46 -0700
Bytes: 1711
________________________________________________
Speaker of the Truth wrote:
> Ever hear the song "too much too little too late"
>
>
Agree.
Too little: Management of the SUV & truck
wind-down made no sense -- all they had to do
was follow in Ford`s footsteps. (Note that
Toyota didn`t get this right either when they
launched the Sequoia.)
Too late: Wagoner has been a day-late and a
dollar short for the last four years.
His fate was finally sealed with the
announcement that GM would lay off 3400 white
collars in October 2009 as a part of their
re-structuring. That must have pissed-off
Treasury and the White House, gangbusters. How
laying them off in April 2009?
--
pj
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:10:11 -0700
From: WayneC <WayneC(at)linkline.moc>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Lines: 35
Bytes: 3197
________________________________________________
Speaker of the Truth wrote:
> Ever hear the song "too much too little too late"
>
>
I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things, but hampered
(slowed & blocked) by pesky little things like union contracts &
negotiations, local politics in every town affected by his proposed
changes, green laws, etc, etc. The guy was a 31-year employee, not an
outsider emotionally unaffected by the changes he attempted to make.
When Obama gave Wagoner the choice of resigning or foregoing bailout
money, he knew full well Wagoner would acquiesce, because Wagoner
wouldn`t sign GM`s death warrant by refusing. In my opinion the wrong
guy was fired... it should have been Gettlefinger, who openly refused to
negotiate any concessions at all. If the changes begun by GM speed up
now, it`ll be because Obama screws the union and local politicians,
something that Wagoner could not do without dooming GM. More likely, GM
will now quickly go out of business or become a federal-run experiment
in building expensive "green cars" which will require heavy subsidies by
the taxpayer in order to sell to greenies.
It`s always seemed to be an axiom that republicans tend to buy GM cars,
while democrats prefer Fords and Chryslers (if they didn`t switch to
Volkswagens or riceburners), so I`m not surprised that Obama went after
GM. The fact that GM has lately been advertising heavily on the
Limbaugh, Hannity, and Miller programs probably sealed Wagoners fate.
Question is, what will Obama do to mollify the UAW as GM goes under?
Or will the workers be so overjoyed at seeing management get screwed
that they`ll forget that they screwed themselves?
GM was my first & favorite auto maker, I was never disappointed by one
of their products (I owned at least 7 over my lifetime, including 4
Corvettes, plus another half-dozen cars powered by Chevy small blocks);
how sad that it`s come to this.
From: JimH <JimH(at)invalid.net>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Lines: 38
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.208.4.50
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:29:37 -0700
Bytes: 3004
________________________________________________
WayneC wrote:
> I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things,
I worked for IBM in the 90`s when they were bleeding red ink and it
looked like they were on the verge of collapse. John Akers, a long time
IBM employee and executive was at the helm. He had to step down in order
to bring about the change in the company necessary for survival. Like
Wagoner, he was not just a part of the good old boy network in the
company, he was the core of it. IBM brought in an outsider, and turned
the company around.
> become a federal-run experiment in building expensive "green cars" which will require heavy subsidies by
> the taxpayer in order to sell to greenies.
Toyota seems to be able to make good money selling the Prius at a
premium. They are expanding the hybrid technology across their products.
The Volt looks like it could be the base on which to build the next
generation of GM cars. Combining performance, fuel efficiency, and clean
operation should have been the goal twenty years ago. Better late than
never.
> It`s always seemed to be an axiom that republicans tend to buy GM cars,
> while democrats prefer Fords and Chryslers
I`m a Democrat. I have driven GM cars almost exclusively for my entire
life. My first car was a 1964 Impala. I currently own 3 GM vehicles. The
Republicans that I know drive Lexus, Mercedes, or BMW. The ones with
less money drive Toyota or Mazda.
> GM was my first & favorite auto maker, I was never disappointed by one
> of their products (I owned at least 7 over my lifetime, including 4
> Corvettes, plus another half-dozen cars powered by Chevy small blocks);
> how sad that it`s come to this.
On this, we agree. But, I remember reading an article at least 10-15
years ago that forecast this exact set of events for GM. I didn`t or
more probably couldn`t believe it at the time.
NEXT POSTS:
| | |
