|
|
  
 
Subject:
Re: Obama now owns GM
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:59:50 -0700
From: WayneC <WayneC(at)linkline.moc>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Lines: 46
Bytes: 3993
________________________________________________
CardsFan wrote:
> "WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message
> news:ReCdnesQTdMLxk_UnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(at)linkline.com...
>> 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.
>
> The whole point is the corporation has to have someone with an entirely new
> agenda to survive, not someone who`s sitting around pining for the good old
> days. The automotive world has radically changed and if it does not adapt,
> GM is dead. It would have been dead already without taxpayer help, so Mr.
> Wagoner was out of a job either way.
>
My point is that Obama isn`t hampered by contractual legal agreements,
he proved that with the AIG bonuses.... Wagoner had to honor those
legalities. Obama can wheedle the democratic mayors (and the union
bosses) and promise them largesse from the US treasury to smooth over
the changes he`d like to make in the auto industry... Wagoner could not.
Obama could have done the wheedling and still leave Wagoner in charge of
the change, but he needed a boogeyman for us peons to blame.
I still think Wagoner did as much, and went as fast in bringing change,
as he was able to do, I do not think he was in the same arrogant mold as
the prior bean counters who ruined GM for so many years. I think he got
hit by a world-wide economic credit crunch at precisely the wrong time,
when company coffers were low (partly from the costs of changes he`d
been making), and before his changes began to pay off. You`ll note that
the governor of Michigan called Wagoner a "sacrificial lamb", noting the
many changes he`d already made and the much-improved products just going
into production, while still retaining the good will of the politicians
and union.
I would rather see a "car guy" in charge of GM, but as I recall, they
did have one of those in the late 80`s and he wasn`t up to the rest of
the job... to paraphrase what one TV commentator said, GM today is a
retirement and health benefits company that operates a car-making
business on the side to help defray the costs of it`s public service
obligations. I just happen to think Wagoner was closer to a "car guy"
than the string of financial guys that preceded him, and that he did
push change.
From: "CardsFan" <me(at)here.com>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:18:12 -0400
Lines: 80
NNTP-Posting-Host: cfs98-112.cfs.purdue.edu
Bytes: 5457
________________________________________________
"WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message
news:bPKdnTJrLInEHk_UnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d(at)linkline.com...
> CardsFan wrote:
>> "WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message
>> news:ReCdnesQTdMLxk_UnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(at)linkline.com...
>>> 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.
>>
>> The whole point is the corporation has to have someone with an entirely
>> new agenda to survive, not someone who`s sitting around pining for the
>> good old days. The automotive world has radically changed and if it does
>> not adapt, GM is dead. It would have been dead already without taxpayer
>> help, so Mr. Wagoner was out of a job either way.
>>
> My point is that Obama isn`t hampered by contractual legal agreements, he
> proved that with the AIG bonuses.... Wagoner had to honor those
> legalities.
Like everyone else, Obama is bound by the law. His directive was to "find
any legal means" to reclaim the AIG bonuses. It was the House which passed
a law to tax the bonuses at 90%, a law which probably will run afoul of the
Constitution. Obama has not signaled support for that law.
> Obama can wheedle the democratic mayors (and the union bosses) and promise
> them largesse from the US treasury to smooth over the changes he`d like to
> make in the auto industry... Wagoner could not.
> Obama could have done the wheedling and still leave Wagoner in charge of
> the change, but he needed a boogeyman for us peons to blame.
They threw out the head of AIG too. The only thing Obama has said is that
he`s committed to a sustainable US auto industry, and that the government
will honor GM/Chrysler warranties. I concede that the only way Wagoner
could have "saved" the company was to take it into bankruptcy. Its legacy
costs would have forced that already had they not thrown themselves at the
feet of the taxpayer.
> I still think Wagoner did as much, and went as fast in bringing change, as
> he was able to do, I do not think he was in the same arrogant mold as the
> prior bean counters who ruined GM for so many years. I think he got hit by
> a world-wide economic credit crunch at precisely the wrong time, when
> company coffers were low (partly from the costs of changes he`d been
> making), and before his changes began to pay off. You`ll note that the
> governor of Michigan called Wagoner a "sacrificial lamb", noting the many
> changes he`d already made and the much-improved products just going into
> production, while still retaining the good will of the politicians and
> union.
I just bought a lightly used car this past weekend, a 2008 Acura TL that was
a dealer service department loaner. I looked hard at the Malibu, and every
single car I saw on the lot/showroom had fit and finish issues of one sort
or another. Panels didn`t align, gaps were inconsistent on opposite sides
of the car, etc. My honest opinion is that none of those cars would ever
have made it out of a Honda factory. It`s not American workers, my car was
made in Ohio. I blame the engineers for poor design. If you tell me that`s
because the bean counters won`t let the engineers do their thing, I can`t
argue with you because I don`t know the inner workings of the company.
> I would rather see a "car guy" in charge of GM, but as I recall, they did
> have one of those in the late 80`s and he wasn`t up to the rest of the
> job... to paraphrase what one TV commentator said, GM today is a
> retirement and health benefits company that operates a car-making business
> on the side to help defray the costs of it`s public service obligations. I
> just happen to think Wagoner was closer to a "car guy" than the string of
> financial guys that preceded him, and that he did push change.
Remember "Roger and Me" when Michael Moore was funny, before he became a
self-righteous jerk?
AJM
`93 40th Anniversary coupe, 6 sp (both tops)
From: pj <pj4380(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Lines: 144
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.199.179.29
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:20:30 -0700
Bytes: 7009
________________________________________________
WayneC wrote:
> CardsFan wrote:
>> "WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message
>> news:ReCdnesQTdMLxk_UnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(at)linkline.com...
>>> 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.
Well said! Unfortunately, BK looks like the
only way to shed the baggage and BK appeared to
be Wagoner`s `line in the sand.` Fritz has a
bit less of that `baggage` and can look himself
in the mirror while making the next round of
hard choices. I give him 180 days on the job.
Obama may be considering 90 days.
The cover of last week`s TIME magazine said it all.
>>
>> The whole point is the corporation has to have someone with an
>> entirely new agenda to survive, not someone who`s sitting around
>> pining for the good old days. The automotive world has radically
>> changed and if it does not adapt, GM is dead. It would have been dead
>> already without taxpayer help, so Mr. Wagoner was out of a job either
>> way.
Yup; and, his stock options weren`t worth much!
>
> My point is that Obama isn`t hampered by contractual legal agreements,
> he proved that with the AIG bonuses.... Wagoner had to honor those
> legalities. Obama can wheedle the democratic mayors (and the union
> bosses) and promise them largesse from the US treasury to smooth over
> the changes he`d like to make in the auto industry... Wagoner could not.
> Obama could have done the wheedling and still leave Wagoner in charge of
> the change, but he needed a boogeyman for us peons to blame.
Hmmm, I thought we already spent the Treasury.
Next act: fake how much gold is stored in Fort
Knox.
>
> I still think Wagoner did as much, and went as fast in bringing change,
> as he was able to do, I do not think he was in the same arrogant mold as
> the prior bean counters who ruined GM for so many years. I think he got
> hit by a world-wide economic credit crunch at precisely the wrong time,
> when company coffers were low (partly from the costs of changes he`d
> been making), and before his changes began to pay off. You`ll note that
> the governor of Michigan called Wagoner a "sacrificial lamb", noting the
> many changes he`d already made and the much-improved products just going
> into production, while still retaining the good will of the politicians
> and union.
I think Wagoner, "meant well." We have to
remember that he was *Chairman of the Board of
Directors*. He failed to lead the Board to
maintain GM as a profitable enterprise with a
sound balance sheet. He was in charge when the
Book value went into negative territory.
The ship ran aground, a couple of times in 2005
when Wagoner and the Board failed to understand
the fallacies of their inventory valuation. (the
Sloan system of cooking the books). That was
obvious when the valuation of finished goods,
parts and material inventory was being based on
MSRP rather than on the actual net selling price
after "incentives." The ship sank in early 2008
(when corporate book value passed through zero
and cash flow was negative.)
Ask any Navy guy -- you `shitcan` the Commanding
Officer when the ship runs aground. You don`t
wait for it to sink. There is no reason for
doing otherwise.
>
> I would rather see a "car guy" in charge of GM, but as I recall, they
> did have one of those in the late 80`s and he wasn`t up to the rest of
> the job... to paraphrase what one TV commentator said, GM today is a
> retirement and health benefits company that operates a car-making
> business on the side to help defray the costs of it`s public service
> obligations. I just happen to think Wagoner was closer to a "car guy"
> than the string of financial guys that preceded him, and that he did
> push change.
Agree. But the string of `financial guys`
weren`t very good at their own trade. Bluntly,
their forecasting sucked as bad as their
operating statements sucked.
All this may prove that Obama is the only "car
guy" on the block who can keep GM in the car
business.
Fritz`s job is to fit the `needed product line`
into a `clear balance sheet.` That dictum seems
daunting and I wish him well.
I doubt that GM has the bits and pieces on the
shelf (or even has drawing numbers and bill of
materials) to build the "needed product line."
(producible cars that will meet CAFE, buyer
desires, and also meet government profit
objectives.)
I fear there will be little room for future
model changes to Corvette. Worse, some forced
plant closures may restrict Corvette assembly to
shelf-stocks of components until vendor sources
outside the GM umbrella can be started. At that
point the `vette may price itself out of the
production car market.
Wonder what Dad`s cut is on this? (How
interdependent is Corvette on the rest of the GM
line to meet it`s Build Sheets?)
Maybe best for Corvette and for GM to sell the
whole marque.
We may find ourselves importing `gray market`
`vettes made in India by a joint venture of Tata
and Fiat. And, built to European or
Middle-eastern standards.
Possibly purchased thru the /Dick Cheney
Corvette/ franchise in downtown Abu-Dhabi but
drop-shipped into Ensenada for nighttime
delivery in Ciudad Juarez under some NAFTA waiver.
Shame this can`t be a big smiley :)
--
pj
NEXT POSTS:
| | |
