GM CEO Wagoner to Step Down
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 213
/rant on
People should be more concerned with the amount of debt this government is creating for our childrens grand children than whether or not we get our camaro. At the rate they are printing money these cars are going to skyrocket in price. Don't get me wrong...I would love to be driving around in a new camaro but not at the expense of this great nations health. But then again we'll probably end up losing the camaro once again now that the Government is pulling the GM strings as it doesn't fall perfectly into their green world. Since all these bailouts have not worked....why not let capitalism work and let some of these companies fail and file for bankruptcy....which is a shame because a lot of the blame can be put on the Governement itself! Our founding fathers would be so disgusted with what we've let this Government grow into.
/rant off
People should be more concerned with the amount of debt this government is creating for our childrens grand children than whether or not we get our camaro. At the rate they are printing money these cars are going to skyrocket in price. Don't get me wrong...I would love to be driving around in a new camaro but not at the expense of this great nations health. But then again we'll probably end up losing the camaro once again now that the Government is pulling the GM strings as it doesn't fall perfectly into their green world. Since all these bailouts have not worked....why not let capitalism work and let some of these companies fail and file for bankruptcy....which is a shame because a lot of the blame can be put on the Governement itself! Our founding fathers would be so disgusted with what we've let this Government grow into.
/rant off
).
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
Here's the take from Jerry Flint, a journalist whose opinions I have almost always respected:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/30/ric...partner=alerts
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/30/ric...partner=alerts
Why Rick Wagoner Had To Go
Jerry Flint, 03.30.09, 12:10 PM EDT
The ouster of GM's chief executive was long overdue. But will his successor be any better?
The fall of General Motors Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner was unavoidable. There is no way President Obama could hand out more billions to a management with a practically unblemished record of failure.
Yes, it's certainly good news; the Wagoner management was never going to turn around General Motors. Never. After all, Wagoner has been chief executive since 2000 and head of North American auto operations six more years before that. His predecessor and mentor, Jack Smith, became chief in 1992. GM lost market share in the U.S. in all but a couple of those years. The losses in Wagoner's last four years topped $80 billion.
Worse, GM seemed adrift in this crisis. Its European operations--and they are key to saving GM--seem to be without serious direction. In the U.S. we hear mostly of program cancellations, and the Vice Chairman Robert Lutz, the only real "car guy" in top management, is giving up and retiring at the end of the year.
But it might be a mistake to cheer Wagoner's leaving, because we don't know if his replacement will be any better. The second in command, the president and chief operating officer, is Fritz Henderson, and he is expected to succeed Wagoner, at least for now. Frankly, it is difficult to see what he did to become president of the once largest automaker in the world. Like Wagoner, he is a fairly colorless financial officer. But it's unfair to knock him before he's had a chance to do something.
What GM needs in this crisis, of course, is a spirited leader, a fighter, who can speak to the American people and convince us that GM is coming back. He's got to have a feel for the business, for the product, for the car buyer, and not just for the balance sheet. And he's got to be willing to wave the flag too in these desperate times. We're talking about the likes of Lee Iacocca, who brought Chrysler back, and George Romney, who saved American Motors. Finance men can be heroes too: Sergio Marchionne, who is leading the recovery of Fiat, is a good example.
Rick Wagoner had some successes. The 0% financing offers after Sept. 11 might have kept the country out of a recession. He always pushed China. And hiring Robert Lutz, the retired president of Chrysler, to lead a GM product renaissance was an excellent move, although it showed how weak GM had become in products, so weak it needed an outsider to fix its cars.
But these strokes are overshadowed by the constant failures. Wagoner took over as chief of North American auto operations back in 1994. He was given the job by Jack Smith, although Wagoner knew nothing about the American auto business. He had been chief financial officer. At that time GM's U.S market share was 33%. The last month counted, February, the share was 18% and sinking.
And GM under Wagoner missed trend after trend: GM was late into crossovers, meaning sport utility vehicles built on car platforms, which are big thing now. GM was late into small SUVs, like Ford Motor's Escape or Honda's CR-V. GM was not only late in hybrids--it doesn't seem to understand that the lure is high miles per gallon, 40 to 50 miles per gallon. It's bringing out a Camaro now, years after Ford redid its Mustang and after Chrysler redid its Dodge Challenger. If anything represents GM vehicles under Wagoner, it might be the failed Pontiac Aztek, which was considered the ugliest American vehicle in modern days.
But Wagner's worst sin was to allow his company to build boring cars with outmoded engines and transmissions, just awful interiors and poor fits and finish. His administration showed disrespect for the product, the engineers who created it and the customers who bought it.
His administration allowed Toyota to overtake GM and become the world's largest automaker, and next year it's likely that Toyota will become the No. 1 seller in the U.S. too. He not only lost the low and middle market to the Japanese, but he lost the luxury end to the Germans. GM's trucks and big SUVs were a success, but it was madness for a car company to ignore cars--and that was Wagoner's responsibility. By the time he realized that GM needed someone at the top who understood cars and hired Lutz it was too late.
To be fair, the latest collapse was caused by that $4 a gallon gasoline and then the recession, neither of which were of Wagoner's doing. But all those years of failure were.
He created the vanishing auto company. Oldsmobile closed; Saturn, Hummer, Saab and Pontiac to go.
How did he manage to stay on despite all the failures? First, the GM board of directors are pet rocks. Second, Rick Wagoner seemed to be a decent man. He didn't seem to pay himself grotesquely or live an obscene style. He had a pleasing personality. He just didn't understand the American car business. The Detroit and auto press were amazingly uncritical.
But he and his predecessor Jack Smith had created a management system that cut "car people" from top positions. And as GM suffered market share losses every year, the answer wasn't to create exciting cars to win back share but to go to the balance sheet to cut costs and sell off pieces of the company, like GMAC, for cash.
Auto companies can be saved: In recent years Carlos Ghosn turned around Nissan and Marchionne turned around Fiat. But the new billions from the government won't save GM, and all the recovery plans are meaningless. It will take leadership
Jerry Flint, 03.30.09, 12:10 PM EDT
The ouster of GM's chief executive was long overdue. But will his successor be any better?
The fall of General Motors Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner was unavoidable. There is no way President Obama could hand out more billions to a management with a practically unblemished record of failure.
Yes, it's certainly good news; the Wagoner management was never going to turn around General Motors. Never. After all, Wagoner has been chief executive since 2000 and head of North American auto operations six more years before that. His predecessor and mentor, Jack Smith, became chief in 1992. GM lost market share in the U.S. in all but a couple of those years. The losses in Wagoner's last four years topped $80 billion.
Worse, GM seemed adrift in this crisis. Its European operations--and they are key to saving GM--seem to be without serious direction. In the U.S. we hear mostly of program cancellations, and the Vice Chairman Robert Lutz, the only real "car guy" in top management, is giving up and retiring at the end of the year.
But it might be a mistake to cheer Wagoner's leaving, because we don't know if his replacement will be any better. The second in command, the president and chief operating officer, is Fritz Henderson, and he is expected to succeed Wagoner, at least for now. Frankly, it is difficult to see what he did to become president of the once largest automaker in the world. Like Wagoner, he is a fairly colorless financial officer. But it's unfair to knock him before he's had a chance to do something.
What GM needs in this crisis, of course, is a spirited leader, a fighter, who can speak to the American people and convince us that GM is coming back. He's got to have a feel for the business, for the product, for the car buyer, and not just for the balance sheet. And he's got to be willing to wave the flag too in these desperate times. We're talking about the likes of Lee Iacocca, who brought Chrysler back, and George Romney, who saved American Motors. Finance men can be heroes too: Sergio Marchionne, who is leading the recovery of Fiat, is a good example.
Rick Wagoner had some successes. The 0% financing offers after Sept. 11 might have kept the country out of a recession. He always pushed China. And hiring Robert Lutz, the retired president of Chrysler, to lead a GM product renaissance was an excellent move, although it showed how weak GM had become in products, so weak it needed an outsider to fix its cars.
But these strokes are overshadowed by the constant failures. Wagoner took over as chief of North American auto operations back in 1994. He was given the job by Jack Smith, although Wagoner knew nothing about the American auto business. He had been chief financial officer. At that time GM's U.S market share was 33%. The last month counted, February, the share was 18% and sinking.
And GM under Wagoner missed trend after trend: GM was late into crossovers, meaning sport utility vehicles built on car platforms, which are big thing now. GM was late into small SUVs, like Ford Motor's Escape or Honda's CR-V. GM was not only late in hybrids--it doesn't seem to understand that the lure is high miles per gallon, 40 to 50 miles per gallon. It's bringing out a Camaro now, years after Ford redid its Mustang and after Chrysler redid its Dodge Challenger. If anything represents GM vehicles under Wagoner, it might be the failed Pontiac Aztek, which was considered the ugliest American vehicle in modern days.
But Wagner's worst sin was to allow his company to build boring cars with outmoded engines and transmissions, just awful interiors and poor fits and finish. His administration showed disrespect for the product, the engineers who created it and the customers who bought it.
His administration allowed Toyota to overtake GM and become the world's largest automaker, and next year it's likely that Toyota will become the No. 1 seller in the U.S. too. He not only lost the low and middle market to the Japanese, but he lost the luxury end to the Germans. GM's trucks and big SUVs were a success, but it was madness for a car company to ignore cars--and that was Wagoner's responsibility. By the time he realized that GM needed someone at the top who understood cars and hired Lutz it was too late.
To be fair, the latest collapse was caused by that $4 a gallon gasoline and then the recession, neither of which were of Wagoner's doing. But all those years of failure were.
He created the vanishing auto company. Oldsmobile closed; Saturn, Hummer, Saab and Pontiac to go.
How did he manage to stay on despite all the failures? First, the GM board of directors are pet rocks. Second, Rick Wagoner seemed to be a decent man. He didn't seem to pay himself grotesquely or live an obscene style. He had a pleasing personality. He just didn't understand the American car business. The Detroit and auto press were amazingly uncritical.
But he and his predecessor Jack Smith had created a management system that cut "car people" from top positions. And as GM suffered market share losses every year, the answer wasn't to create exciting cars to win back share but to go to the balance sheet to cut costs and sell off pieces of the company, like GMAC, for cash.
Auto companies can be saved: In recent years Carlos Ghosn turned around Nissan and Marchionne turned around Fiat. But the new billions from the government won't save GM, and all the recovery plans are meaningless. It will take leadership
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
Excuse me, bud.... GM's cash ran out months ago.
GM got themselves here.
There are plenty of posts here that are pretty strong in opinion in that the poster feels that forcing Mr Wagoner out is simply a case of governent sticking their nose into business, and interfering. Not gonna list every post, so I'll want to comment to what seems to be a stunning sentiment with many here.
First of all, it's absolutely amazing that so many have selective memory or have such a startling ability to pick and choose items to fit an ideal that frankly, doesn't hold any water in this situation.
I have been here for nearly 2 years under 2 different names, and I've seen many people here roast GM over the direction they've taken. When GM was doing all the things that left it venerable to a reversal of the economy or marketplace (which most here over the years were wise enough to forsee) many roasted GM and bluntly wondered what on earth are they thinking. Although, most of it centered on the "why aren't they taking pocket change and make a new Camaro" line, but many were also concerned (rightly as it turned out) that GM was putting all it's eggs in one basket, & dragging their collective feet in doing necessary changes for the company's survival and future.
Last summer, the General Motors Corperation went to the Ford Motor Company looking for a merger. After Ford reviewed GM's books, Ford bolted the other way. If that wasn't a major clue something was wrong, then information that GM was plunging towards over $60 billion in debt should have been a heads up. Even before all this happened, GM showed signs of trouble. GM had to actually place all new products on hold in order to simply move the GMT900 line's introduction up mere months.
Reading some of these posts here, it almost looks like that many here believe that Mr Wagoner is being forced to resign unfairly, for no reason whatsoever. Pushed out by an evil government that has some type of greenie enviromental aganda or the realization of a "Big Brother" that is determined to force GM to it's knees and into oblivion.
Oh Pleeeze!
First:
General Motors ran THEMSELVES into the ground. Gold fish have a memory span of only a few seconds. Humans, even mentally challenged ones, have one quite a bit longer.
General Motors has been losing money and running up debt for many years. Some was gross mismanagement or shortsightedness. Some was because of circumstances stacked against it that they were perhaps forced into (ie: Delphi). But GM was obviously in trouble the day gasoline hit a price level that no incentives or discounts would move large trucks and SUVs at the volume needed to keep GM's house of cards standing.
What is telling is that GM (and Chrysler to be fair) was sitting in front of Congress within a mere month and a half of a stock market fall asking for cash. Up to that point, GM had made it through recessions in very recent history (2 in the 70s, & 1 in the late 80s/early 90s) that were far longer and far worse.
Two:
Rick Wagoner has been CEO at GM for nearly a decade.
Mr Wagoner is a VERY decent guy. I have e-mailed him at least twice over the years, and everyone that knows him really likes the guy.. he genuinely cares about those that work for him, and recognizes GM's role in the economy (local and national). By no means did he deserve the taunts and general vicious harassment that "Buickman" gave him.
Mr Wagoner started off with big plans to change GM, and wasn't afraid to say he didn't know about cars and was secure enough to bring in genuine talent from even competing companies (including bringing one famous car guy out of retirement and create a position for him).
However, again, he has been at GM for a decade. Far more than enough time to get major changes pushed through GM, whether he has to go through the GM board for everything or not. The fact that GM has changed as much as it has the past year (let alone the past few months) is a testament that it could have changed to this magnatude many years ago. Mr Wagoner took a painful-to-watch "Go-Slow" approach while the rest of the industry was moving fast to stay competitive.
GM developed methods and capabilities to bring vehicles to production that outpaced every other carmaker on the planet. Yet, not only kept old ways of doing things, actually turned many of them far more conservative.
Three:
The government in this issue is NOT the problem.
Flash back to last fall and winter. Mr Wagoner was sitting before congress along with Mr Nardelli and Mr Mulally.
Mr Nardelli stated that without government help, the tiny Chrysler Division wouldn't make it past summer 2009. Mr Mulally, from the half-the-size-of-GM Ford Motor Company stated that although Ford didn't need government money, that they were there for support because if any of the other 2 went down, it would put Ford at risk.
However, it was Mr Wagoner that stated that without government money, the General Motors Corperation... at the time, the planet's largest automotive manufacturer, a company that's been around 100 years and has a major presence on every continent except Antartica... would go underwithin 45... DAYS!!!
Congress, via some Senators professing the very same freemarket, government-non involvement in business principles as many of the ideas posted on this thread, voted to let GM crash and burn without any federal funds (even though, they were giving all types of money to foreign brands to set up shop in their own state). President Bush, in a seemingly rare sense of clarity decided to overrule congress and give GM (and Chrysler) money anyway with the stipulation that they need to prove viability and win concessions within a certain time or must give back all money, even if it means bankruptcy and liquidation. There was talk of replacing CEOs even back then.
Since that time, both GM and Chrysler has had to come up with plans to show viability. Next to GM, Chrysler has it easy. Chrysler is asking for a relative small amount, it already went through alot of the labor cutting it needed from the Daimler days, it already operates on next to nothing, and it's issue is simply moving from a model based on trucks and fleet & rental sales to cars with good enough materials to compete strongly retail sales. It already has ties to Nissan, plus, Nardelli is still relatively new. But with Chrysler being owned by Cerberus, that kills it. Cerberus shouldn't profit from taxpayer money when they can still invest more and change leadership at will.
Mr Wagoner, on the other hand, presided over a time that could be easily called the collaspse of GM. A time when GM was crumbling, while he was CEO GM took extremely conservative steps, and General Motors failed to show the same dramatic leadership in developing and making world class cars as they did making world class trucks. GM also seemed to become the "Daddy Warbucks" of every supplier and spinoff that did business with them.
While it is certainly and grossly unfair to lay all of GM's current situation at Mr Wagoner's feet (where were the Board of Directors during all of this???!!
), there is no CEO of any company I know of that would have survived a fraction of this time under the same circumstances as Mr Wagoner has survived. Jack Stempel was CEO of GM for only a year, and GM's crisis at that time isn't even on the same level with what GM has had to deal with the past couple of years. The total tenure of GM's 2 previous CEOs weren't much longer than Mr Wagoner's single tenure.
And it is also cynical (if not downright ignorance) to criticize the government in all of this.
The federal government didn't drive GM to this point. The feds also didn't exactly ride to GM's rescue either... they would have rather let GM rot.
GM was within only a couple of days from shutting down when they got their first federal money.
In case you need it to be placed into context:
There would be NO Camaro without federal money, because there would be NO GM!!
As with any lender, whether it be a bank, the government, the Mob, or even Auntie Elm, the lender DOES have the complete right to demands and conditions as a condition of lending. It's either take it or don't take it. Period.
If the market had never crashed, and CitiGroup was the one bailing out General Motors instead of the Feds, you'd have to actually be heavily addicted to crack and every hour having to perform cardinal acts with 4 legged farm animals for cash to support that habit in order to genuinely believe that as a condition to getting the money, CitiGroup wouldn't look at GM's last number of years and demand the CEO resign (and would likely force out most of the board as well!).
Regardless as to what the government does, it is no worse (actually, is better because it's forcing changes GM should have done years ago) than what GM has done, and still keeps GM alive instead of being the largest corperation in recent history to go into liquidation.
If any of you are willing to forgo buying GM products (including the Camaro) from this day on, then you can talk against government intervention at GM as much as you want.
If not, and you plan on buying a GM vehicle, you owe the Feds a thank you because you would not have the chance to buy that vehicle if it wasn't for taxpayer money.
GM got themselves here.
There are plenty of posts here that are pretty strong in opinion in that the poster feels that forcing Mr Wagoner out is simply a case of governent sticking their nose into business, and interfering. Not gonna list every post, so I'll want to comment to what seems to be a stunning sentiment with many here.
First of all, it's absolutely amazing that so many have selective memory or have such a startling ability to pick and choose items to fit an ideal that frankly, doesn't hold any water in this situation.
I have been here for nearly 2 years under 2 different names, and I've seen many people here roast GM over the direction they've taken. When GM was doing all the things that left it venerable to a reversal of the economy or marketplace (which most here over the years were wise enough to forsee) many roasted GM and bluntly wondered what on earth are they thinking. Although, most of it centered on the "why aren't they taking pocket change and make a new Camaro" line, but many were also concerned (rightly as it turned out) that GM was putting all it's eggs in one basket, & dragging their collective feet in doing necessary changes for the company's survival and future.
Last summer, the General Motors Corperation went to the Ford Motor Company looking for a merger. After Ford reviewed GM's books, Ford bolted the other way. If that wasn't a major clue something was wrong, then information that GM was plunging towards over $60 billion in debt should have been a heads up. Even before all this happened, GM showed signs of trouble. GM had to actually place all new products on hold in order to simply move the GMT900 line's introduction up mere months.
Reading some of these posts here, it almost looks like that many here believe that Mr Wagoner is being forced to resign unfairly, for no reason whatsoever. Pushed out by an evil government that has some type of greenie enviromental aganda or the realization of a "Big Brother" that is determined to force GM to it's knees and into oblivion.
Oh Pleeeze!
First:
General Motors ran THEMSELVES into the ground. Gold fish have a memory span of only a few seconds. Humans, even mentally challenged ones, have one quite a bit longer.
General Motors has been losing money and running up debt for many years. Some was gross mismanagement or shortsightedness. Some was because of circumstances stacked against it that they were perhaps forced into (ie: Delphi). But GM was obviously in trouble the day gasoline hit a price level that no incentives or discounts would move large trucks and SUVs at the volume needed to keep GM's house of cards standing.
What is telling is that GM (and Chrysler to be fair) was sitting in front of Congress within a mere month and a half of a stock market fall asking for cash. Up to that point, GM had made it through recessions in very recent history (2 in the 70s, & 1 in the late 80s/early 90s) that were far longer and far worse.
Two:
Rick Wagoner has been CEO at GM for nearly a decade.
Mr Wagoner is a VERY decent guy. I have e-mailed him at least twice over the years, and everyone that knows him really likes the guy.. he genuinely cares about those that work for him, and recognizes GM's role in the economy (local and national). By no means did he deserve the taunts and general vicious harassment that "Buickman" gave him.
Mr Wagoner started off with big plans to change GM, and wasn't afraid to say he didn't know about cars and was secure enough to bring in genuine talent from even competing companies (including bringing one famous car guy out of retirement and create a position for him).
However, again, he has been at GM for a decade. Far more than enough time to get major changes pushed through GM, whether he has to go through the GM board for everything or not. The fact that GM has changed as much as it has the past year (let alone the past few months) is a testament that it could have changed to this magnatude many years ago. Mr Wagoner took a painful-to-watch "Go-Slow" approach while the rest of the industry was moving fast to stay competitive.
GM developed methods and capabilities to bring vehicles to production that outpaced every other carmaker on the planet. Yet, not only kept old ways of doing things, actually turned many of them far more conservative.
Three:
The government in this issue is NOT the problem.
Flash back to last fall and winter. Mr Wagoner was sitting before congress along with Mr Nardelli and Mr Mulally.
Mr Nardelli stated that without government help, the tiny Chrysler Division wouldn't make it past summer 2009. Mr Mulally, from the half-the-size-of-GM Ford Motor Company stated that although Ford didn't need government money, that they were there for support because if any of the other 2 went down, it would put Ford at risk.
However, it was Mr Wagoner that stated that without government money, the General Motors Corperation... at the time, the planet's largest automotive manufacturer, a company that's been around 100 years and has a major presence on every continent except Antartica... would go underwithin 45... DAYS!!!
Congress, via some Senators professing the very same freemarket, government-non involvement in business principles as many of the ideas posted on this thread, voted to let GM crash and burn without any federal funds (even though, they were giving all types of money to foreign brands to set up shop in their own state). President Bush, in a seemingly rare sense of clarity decided to overrule congress and give GM (and Chrysler) money anyway with the stipulation that they need to prove viability and win concessions within a certain time or must give back all money, even if it means bankruptcy and liquidation. There was talk of replacing CEOs even back then.
Since that time, both GM and Chrysler has had to come up with plans to show viability. Next to GM, Chrysler has it easy. Chrysler is asking for a relative small amount, it already went through alot of the labor cutting it needed from the Daimler days, it already operates on next to nothing, and it's issue is simply moving from a model based on trucks and fleet & rental sales to cars with good enough materials to compete strongly retail sales. It already has ties to Nissan, plus, Nardelli is still relatively new. But with Chrysler being owned by Cerberus, that kills it. Cerberus shouldn't profit from taxpayer money when they can still invest more and change leadership at will.
Mr Wagoner, on the other hand, presided over a time that could be easily called the collaspse of GM. A time when GM was crumbling, while he was CEO GM took extremely conservative steps, and General Motors failed to show the same dramatic leadership in developing and making world class cars as they did making world class trucks. GM also seemed to become the "Daddy Warbucks" of every supplier and spinoff that did business with them.
While it is certainly and grossly unfair to lay all of GM's current situation at Mr Wagoner's feet (where were the Board of Directors during all of this???!!
), there is no CEO of any company I know of that would have survived a fraction of this time under the same circumstances as Mr Wagoner has survived. Jack Stempel was CEO of GM for only a year, and GM's crisis at that time isn't even on the same level with what GM has had to deal with the past couple of years. The total tenure of GM's 2 previous CEOs weren't much longer than Mr Wagoner's single tenure.And it is also cynical (if not downright ignorance) to criticize the government in all of this.
The federal government didn't drive GM to this point. The feds also didn't exactly ride to GM's rescue either... they would have rather let GM rot.
GM was within only a couple of days from shutting down when they got their first federal money.
In case you need it to be placed into context:
There would be NO Camaro without federal money, because there would be NO GM!!
As with any lender, whether it be a bank, the government, the Mob, or even Auntie Elm, the lender DOES have the complete right to demands and conditions as a condition of lending. It's either take it or don't take it. Period.
If the market had never crashed, and CitiGroup was the one bailing out General Motors instead of the Feds, you'd have to actually be heavily addicted to crack and every hour having to perform cardinal acts with 4 legged farm animals for cash to support that habit in order to genuinely believe that as a condition to getting the money, CitiGroup wouldn't look at GM's last number of years and demand the CEO resign (and would likely force out most of the board as well!).
Regardless as to what the government does, it is no worse (actually, is better because it's forcing changes GM should have done years ago) than what GM has done, and still keeps GM alive instead of being the largest corperation in recent history to go into liquidation.
If any of you are willing to forgo buying GM products (including the Camaro) from this day on, then you can talk against government intervention at GM as much as you want.
If not, and you plan on buying a GM vehicle, you owe the Feds a thank you because you would not have the chance to buy that vehicle if it wasn't for taxpayer money.
Post of the year!
Registered User
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 210
From: Cincinnati, OH
I can't tell you if Wagoner was the right guy or not. If he wasn't so be it.
However, Obama asking Wagoner to step down - as opposed to the Board of Directors asking him - is in my mind a direct violation of the abbrogation of contracts provision of the U.S. Constitution. If we allow the government to continually ignore important provisos of the most important document in the history of this country, we have no hope to survive as the world's most prosperous, free country.
And to echo thoughts of short memories, it was not the stock market crash of 1929 that so desparately hurt this country. It was the reactive protectionist policies and tarriffs that came close to destroying everything and it appears that we are want to head down the same path -- to wit, new steel tarriffs.
However, Obama asking Wagoner to step down - as opposed to the Board of Directors asking him - is in my mind a direct violation of the abbrogation of contracts provision of the U.S. Constitution. If we allow the government to continually ignore important provisos of the most important document in the history of this country, we have no hope to survive as the world's most prosperous, free country.
And to echo thoughts of short memories, it was not the stock market crash of 1929 that so desparately hurt this country. It was the reactive protectionist policies and tarriffs that came close to destroying everything and it appears that we are want to head down the same path -- to wit, new steel tarriffs.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
However, Obama asking Wagoner to step down - as opposed to the Board of Directors asking him - is in my mind a direct violation of the abbrogation of contracts provision of the U.S. Constitution. If we allow the government to continually ignore important provisos of the most important document in the history of this country, we have no hope to survive as the world's most prosperous, free country.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 499
From: Miami, Fl USA
I can't tell you if Wagoner was the right guy or not. If he wasn't so be it.
However, Obama asking Wagoner to step down - as opposed to the Board of Directors asking him - is in my mind a direct violation of the abbrogation of contracts provision of the U.S. Constitution. If we allow the government to continually ignore important provisos of the most important document in the history of this country, we have no hope to survive as the world's most prosperous, free country.
However, Obama asking Wagoner to step down - as opposed to the Board of Directors asking him - is in my mind a direct violation of the abbrogation of contracts provision of the U.S. Constitution. If we allow the government to continually ignore important provisos of the most important document in the history of this country, we have no hope to survive as the world's most prosperous, free country.
I disagree with your constitutional analysis. GM went to Washington, hat in hand, asking for money. Just as any other lender would, the government can impose whatever conditions it wants on the money it loans. GM was and is under no obligation to borrow the Government's money. Had Wagoner wanted, he could have legally declined to step down, and he would only have had to answer to GM shareholders, not the government. Had Congress passed a law requiring Wagoner to step down, then you would have a point, but that did not happen, so your analysis is wrong.
That being said, replacing Wagoner with another "Finance Guy" is questionable. GM needs a "Product Guy" with a vision of the future and a finance team that can make it happen, not the other way around.
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 213
I disagree with your constitutional analysis. GM went to Washington, hat in hand, asking for money. Just as any other lender would, the government can impose whatever conditions it wants on the money it loans. GM was and is under no obligation to borrow the Government's money. Had Wagoner wanted, he could have legally declined to step down, and he would only have had to answer to GM shareholders, not the government. Had Congress passed a law requiring Wagoner to step down, then you would have a point, but that did not happen, so your analysis is wrong.
2. The federal government doesn't have authority to make "loans" to private companies.
3. Are we still pretending these are "loans?" Lenders don't make "loans" to "non-viable" companies. Otherwise, these companies wouldn't need to government - they could go to banks and investors.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 254
From: OSHAWA
Every other major Auto producing countries have given loans or grants to support their auto industries so I can't see how not doing so here would be a good idea.
Let GM go into liquidation and see just how quickly foreign automakers suddenly come up with money to aquire parts of GM......with the help of their governments.
Remember that bankruptcy proceedings for GM could cost the taxpayers upwards of 100 billions. I think the government will do everything it can to avoid that.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 499
From: Miami, Fl USA
2. The federal government doesn't have authority to make "loans" to private companies.
http://www.sba.gov/services/financia...nce/index.html
Congress has the power to tax and spend. It can choose how to spend.
3. Are we still pretending these are "loans?" Lenders don't make "loans" to "non-viable" companies. Otherwise, these companies wouldn't need to government - they could go to banks and investors.
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 213
Wrong. The government lends money to private businesses all the time. As an example, go to the Small Business Administration's website at:
http://www.sba.gov/services/financia...nce/index.html
http://www.sba.gov/services/financia...nce/index.html
(It already is "giving" money.) Regardless, show me where the authority is to "give" money as it sees fit. Point to that power given to Congress in the Constitution.
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 213
There's a reason I don't live in one of those "other countries" that is taxing and giving money away.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,045
From: Lake Hopatcong N.J
I was close- but off by 3 million.
Where is GM going to get the 23 MILLION to send Wagner on his way?
WTF is up with this? The rest of us are LUCKY if we get a severence package worth a few weeks of pay at best!
Where is GM going to get the 23 MILLION to send Wagner on his way?
WTF is up with this?
The rest of us are LUCKY if we get a severence package worth a few weeks of pay at best!