Obama takes no prisoners... GM boss ordered to quit
Discussion
GGood thing or bad?
Do we need to grow a pair, or is this too much interference in the private sector from Government? Or is this kind of decisive action and lead exactly what is needed in these extraordinary times?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7971202.stm
Do we need to grow a pair, or is this too much interference in the private sector from Government? Or is this kind of decisive action and lead exactly what is needed in these extraordinary times?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7971202.stm
IMHO, Obama is scoring brownie points here - appearing to be brave whilst kicking what is virtually a corpse.
GM is critically sick, no wonder (thank God) the UK (and German for that matter) government won't prop up the domestic arms of this failling empire. Obama is clearly trying to put a bit of distance between himself and the inevetable demise.
GM is critically sick, no wonder (thank God) the UK (and German for that matter) government won't prop up the domestic arms of this failling empire. Obama is clearly trying to put a bit of distance between himself and the inevetable demise.
Edited by Digga on Monday 30th March 08:30
Edited by Digga on Monday 30th March 08:30
turbobloke said:
Interference, same old for these types, but are the people interfering any more competent than those they're interfering with? Probably not. Over here, definitely not.
If GM and Chrysler weren't coming cap in hand begging for bail outs, then I'd agree. As it is, the billions of dollars they've already received and are asking for buy quite a big right to interfere in my book.The big US car makers were in trouble long before the recession, so it's not like they can say they were doing a great job up to now, is it? If I did my job so badly that it required my company to go looking for billions of dollars to recover, I'd expect to be fired. The fact that it is the government providing the funding merely explains why it is the government doing the sacking.
Of course, whether the government was right to intervene with taxpayer money in the first place is a whole different debate, but it wasn't Obama who triggered that. Maybe the better question would be why the Bush administration provided the original billions without making Wagoner's departure a condition of the package?
Kermit power said:
turbobloke said:
Interference, same old for these types, but are the people interfering any more competent than those they're interfering with? Probably not. Over here, definitely not.
If GM and Chrysler weren't coming cap in hand begging for bail outs, then I'd agree. As it is, the billions of dollars they've already received and are asking for buy quite a big right to interfere in my book.The big US car makers were in trouble long before the recession, so it's not like they can say they were doing a great job up to now, is it? If I did my job so badly that it required my company to go looking for billions of dollars to recover, I'd expect to be fired. The fact that it is the government providing the funding merely explains why it is the government doing the sacking.
Of course, whether the government was right to intervene with taxpayer money in the first place is a whole different debate, but it wasn't Obama who triggered that. Maybe the better question would be why the Bush administration provided the original billions without making Wagoner's departure a condition of the package?
Kermit power said:
turbobloke said:
Interference, same old for these types, but are the people interfering any more competent than those they're interfering with? Probably not. Over here, definitely not.
If GM and Chrysler weren't coming cap in hand begging for bail outs, then I'd agree. As it is, the billions of dollars they've already received and are asking for buy quite a big right to interfere in my book.The big US car makers were in trouble long before the recession, so it's not like they can say they were doing a great job up to now, is it? If I did my job so badly that it required my company to go looking for billions of dollars to recover, I'd expect to be fired. The fact that it is the government providing the funding merely explains why it is the government doing the sacking.
Of course, whether the government was right to intervene with taxpayer money in the first place is a whole different debate, but it wasn't Obama who triggered that. Maybe the better question would be why the Bush administration provided the original billions without making Wagoner's departure a condition of the package?
Which is complete BS. The whole episode hasn't actually changed anything, other than sold a few newspapers.
elster said:
But surely if you are singling out one person, then you are saying the reason for the failing business is due to that man.
Which is complete BS. The whole episode hasn't actually changed anything, other than sold a few newspapers.
He is the CEO.Which is complete BS. The whole episode hasn't actually changed anything, other than sold a few newspapers.
When he took the position in June 2000, GM's shares were worth $60 each. On Wednesday last week, it was down to $1.27.
Wagoner has been paid what, $10M or so per annum for that little result?
Sure, he's not the only person to blame, but he's the figurehead. Part of his job description is to take the blame if the s
t hits the fan, and fans don't get much sttier than GM's current ventilation arrangements.Kermit power said:
elster said:
But surely if you are singling out one person, then you are saying the reason for the failing business is due to that man.
Which is complete BS. The whole episode hasn't actually changed anything, other than sold a few newspapers.
He is the CEO.Which is complete BS. The whole episode hasn't actually changed anything, other than sold a few newspapers.
When he took the position in June 2000, GM's shares were worth $60 each. On Wednesday last week, it was down to $1.27.
Wagoner has been paid what, $10M or so per annum for that little result?
Sure, he's not the only person to blame, but he's the figurehead. Part of his job description is to take the blame if the s
t hits the fan, and fans don't get much sttier than GM's current ventilation arrangements.For one person to shoulder the blame for two circumstances which were difficult to reverse, seemingly without any assurance that someone more capable will be installed, seems to me to be more about finding a scapegoat when GM is allowed to fail, than about saving it.
All of which makes me think Obama is another New Labour; installed by the US electorate as a sea change, but without any real quality of substance underneath to carry through with the promises.
Kermit power said:
elster said:
But surely if you are singling out one person, then you are saying the reason for the failing business is due to that man.
Which is complete BS. The whole episode hasn't actually changed anything, other than sold a few newspapers.
He is the CEO.Which is complete BS. The whole episode hasn't actually changed anything, other than sold a few newspapers.
When he took the position in June 2000, GM's shares were worth $60 each. On Wednesday last week, it was down to $1.27.
Wagoner has been paid what, $10M or so per annum for that little result?
Sure, he's not the only person to blame, but he's the figurehead. Part of his job description is to take the blame if the s
t hits the fan, and fans don't get much sttier than GM's current ventilation arrangements.Obama is simply finding himself between a rock and a hard place - he can't be seen throwing good money after bad but he can't be seen singlehandedly killing off the US car industry either. In this light I'd say Team Obama is doing as good a job as can be expected - the result is never going to win any beauty contests anyway.
As for the probability of interfering governments being as incompetent as, or more ncompetent than what they're interfering with - normally I'd say that pretty much in on the money, but in this case it's an irrelevance. If you come to the government cap in hand requesting a few dozen billion dollars 'or else we're going bankrupt' despite all the rest of the world having been fully aware that your business model is not sustainable for the past decade, your incompetence is not in question - it's a given. And TBH chalking the current state of GM and Chrysler up as a result of incompetence is charitable - my take on it is that the people in upper management must have known the same all along and all they did was making sure the gravy train kept on running for as long as possible.
Edited by 900T-R on Monday 30th March 09:29
10 Pence Short said:
Kermit power said:
elster said:
But surely if you are singling out one person, then you are saying the reason for the failing business is due to that man.
Which is complete BS. The whole episode hasn't actually changed anything, other than sold a few newspapers.
He is the CEO.Which is complete BS. The whole episode hasn't actually changed anything, other than sold a few newspapers.
When he took the position in June 2000, GM's shares were worth $60 each. On Wednesday last week, it was down to $1.27.
Wagoner has been paid what, $10M or so per annum for that little result?
Sure, he's not the only person to blame, but he's the figurehead. Part of his job description is to take the blame if the s
t hits the fan, and fans don't get much sttier than GM's current ventilation arrangements.For one person to shoulder the blame for two circumstances which were difficult to reverse, seemingly without any assurance that someone more capable will be installed, seems to me to be more about finding a scapegoat when GM is allowed to fail, than about saving it.
All of which makes me think Obama is another New Labour; installed by the US electorate as a sea change, but without any real quality of substance underneath to carry through with the promises.
Do remember as well that Wagoner himself believes that his own biggest mistake was not investing in hybrid and alternative propulsion technologies. Yes, we all know how vile the Pious is, but it's the sort of thing that has sold in droves with the high oil price. Wagoner couldn't have done anything about the rise in oil prices, but he could've done something to ensure the success of his business wasn't so closely linked to it.
Firstly, we dont know the full story behind the scenes.
Secondly, IMHO good on Obama. Swift and drastic action for not just an employer but a major company that affects so many around the world. Look at GM's profitability, business actions and product line and the realisation that the responsibility for the dismal return of each of these areas lay at one man feet.
We complain if politicians take a long time to do something, then complain if its swift.
Personally i'm glad.
Secondly, IMHO good on Obama. Swift and drastic action for not just an employer but a major company that affects so many around the world. Look at GM's profitability, business actions and product line and the realisation that the responsibility for the dismal return of each of these areas lay at one man feet.
We complain if politicians take a long time to do something, then complain if its swift.
Personally i'm glad.
I happy to buck the trend here and say that Wagoner needs to go. During his time as head of the company he has consistently ignored the market conditions and failed to moderise the business of GM. Under his leadership he got GM right royally screwed over by the Italians and numerous other deals they did. Bad decisions? Poor management? Lack of leadership? Oh, and for the average man in the street, earning $10m a year doesn't help either....
Maybe Obama is 'scoring points' or 'getting public approval'. I look at this more pragmatically. The US government has spanked a hell of a lot of cash on GM, forgetting that they spend a hell-of-a-lot per year buying their products, the very least they expect is to replace the top management. Why on earth would you plough $20bn (I think) into the US automakers and NOT replace the management? I mean, it makes sound business sense to keep the management doesn't it?
Nah, GM is on life support and it needs a massive and complete re-organisation to survive. I would be surprised to see ANY of the top management still in place in a years time. I agree that circumstances have predicated that this was going to happen to GM, BUT, they could have put into action various plans to guarantee their survival. There is plenty they could have done to ensure that the company survived. I fail to understand that they are held to ransom by the unions. Who runs the company again? Wagoner or the unions? If its the unions then they need to be sacked.....
Maybe Obama is 'scoring points' or 'getting public approval'. I look at this more pragmatically. The US government has spanked a hell of a lot of cash on GM, forgetting that they spend a hell-of-a-lot per year buying their products, the very least they expect is to replace the top management. Why on earth would you plough $20bn (I think) into the US automakers and NOT replace the management? I mean, it makes sound business sense to keep the management doesn't it?
Nah, GM is on life support and it needs a massive and complete re-organisation to survive. I would be surprised to see ANY of the top management still in place in a years time. I agree that circumstances have predicated that this was going to happen to GM, BUT, they could have put into action various plans to guarantee their survival. There is plenty they could have done to ensure that the company survived. I fail to understand that they are held to ransom by the unions. Who runs the company again? Wagoner or the unions? If its the unions then they need to be sacked.....
900T-R said:
turbobloke said:
Quite likely they need to go - but what will follow, after the (very likely incompetent) politicians get to meddle more? Maybe worse to come!
How much worse can it get, realistically? And how much more incompetent than GMs top brass can you get? turbobloke said:
900T-R said:
turbobloke said:
Quite likely they need to go - but what will follow, after the (very likely incompetent) politicians get to meddle more? Maybe worse to come!
How much worse can it get, realistically? And how much more incompetent than GMs top brass can you get? The fact is that GM came cap in hand to the US government and not the other way round. Who pays, decides.
Edited by 900T-R on Monday 30th March 10:08
turbobloke said:
Pommygranite said:
We complain if politicians take a long time to do something, then complain if its swift.
The problem is, both timescale and judgement matter.It's no use doing the wrong thing quickly any more than the right thing slowly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff