Obama takes no prisoners... GM boss ordered to quit

[900T-R]

Fittster 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.

The government should step away from industry, let the market decide on GM and its management.

Immediate bankruptcy for GM - fine to me. But I'm neither a US citizen nor do I pay US taxes.

[Pommygranite]

I cant really see your point. You seem to be against government interference based on previous governments yet fail to recognise that its free market capitalism that has dealt its way into this issue.

So would you feel it is better to have left Rick Wagoner there and just wait and see how bad things become?

Politicians are elected to act. Many times unsuccessfully, but i've witnessed many more issues with non-action and self-regulation. Obama is doing what he is supposed to do.

This isnt some little company that should be left alone. This is a large company that if left untouched with leadership will affect many millions more worldwide.

[Fittster]

Pommygranite said:

Obama is doing what he is supposed to do.

This isnt some little company that should be left alone. This is a large company that if left untouched with leadership will affect many millions more worldwide.

What qualifications does Obama have to run a car company (besides very deep pockets)?

A what size does a public company have to be before the Government is right to control its operation?

[turbobloke]

900T-R said:

turbobloke said:

But...but...as per JagLover, those incompetent politicos stood around with their snouts in the trough and their hands over their eyes and ears while Unions mugged the company.

If you're just about the biggest company in the world in a country that values free enterprise and you allow yourself to be mugged by unions, you have only got yourself to blame.

Not if you are hogtied by legislation and/or political will.

900T-R said:

turbobloke said:

Where was Obambi and his Democrat ilk?

Obama hasn't been around for long enough to have had any real influence on the mess that's been made over the course of decades, has he? He's inherited a massive amount of problems and is unlikely to come out smelling of roses no matter which course he'll be taking.

No he wasn't in power as POTUS but he was a Senator, but he could have spoken out, he didn't, his allegiance is to Democrat ideology and his PR image in that context. Re-election etc.

900T-R said:

AFAIK the Unions haven't been knocking on the goverments door demanding a couple of dozen billions or else...

No, they just raided the GM safe and forced their employer down that road. With some self-help from management.

[ben_reza]

interesting story. cannot understand why the US government didnt just bail them out, and let the CEO reward himself with an obsenely huge bonus.

Oh, sorry, thats just the UK that allows that to happen.

[Pommygranite]

Fittster said:

Pommygranite said:

Obama is doing what he is supposed to do.

This isnt some little company that should be left alone. This is a large company that if left untouched with leadership will affect many millions more worldwide.

What qualifications does Obama have to run a car company (besides very deep pockets)?

A what size does a public company have to be before the Government is right to control its operation?

Given the state of the car companies could he do a worse job? I would say that Obama has advisers of a higher economic calibre of GM (hint- see share price of GM).

The government has the right to control the company if the company physically cannot exist without the governments help.

Lets turn it around. Why should GM be left alone and why should the chairman remain given their position?

[turbobloke]

Pommygranite said:

I cant really see your point. You seem to be against government interference based on previous governments yet fail to recognise that its free market capitalism that has dealt its way into this issue.

Precisely no - it isn't. Free market capitalism it was not.

Back in the late 90s Clinton ordered (through legislation and an appointed enforcer) US banks to issue mortgages to blacks and hispanics with insufficient income to repay, and then everybody - well equal opps is just that - jumped aboard, over a decade later with this idiocy continuing all the time, the toxic assets/debts arising have been repackaged and sold around the world. Bingo.

So, you have political intereference in the markets at the very heart of this. If banks weren't so compromised by Clinton's policy with their toxic assets/debts, quite possibly GM could have refinanced as and when required. the entire context would be different.

[Fittster]

Pommygranite said:

The government has the right to control the company if the company physically cannot exist without the governments help.

Lets turn it around. Why should GM be left alone and why should the chairman remain given their position?

If a company cannot exist without help why should it exist at all? If GM went bust and stopped all production you would still be able to buy a car tomorrow. Be allowing weak firms to continue you damage healthy companies. If GM went bust the surviving companies would be in a stronger position.

GM should be left alone because it's not the job of the government to run commericial organisations.

[900T-R]

turbobloke said:

Back in the late 90s Clinton ordered (through legislation and an appointed enforcer) US banks to issue mortgages to blacks and hispanics with insufficient income to repay, and then everybody - well equal opps is just that - jumped aboard, over a decade later with this idiocy continuing all the time, the toxic assets/debts arising have been repackaged and sold around the world. Bingo.

So, you have political intereference in the markets at the very heart of this.

GM has been a terminal patient for as long as I care to remember. Arguably, they have been able to stretch their existance this far by way of car loans having been available to pretty much everyone with a pulse as their product has been pretty much impossible to push out the door without the help of incentives, zero percent financing et cetera.

[turbobloke]

900T-R said:

turbobloke said:

Back in the late 90s Clinton ordered (through legislation and an appointed enforcer) US banks to issue mortgages to blacks and hispanics with insufficient income to repay, and then everybody - well equal opps is just that - jumped aboard, over a decade later with this idiocy continuing all the time, the toxic assets/debts arising have been repackaged and sold around the world. Bingo.

So, you have political intereference in the markets at the very heart of this.

GM has been a terminal patient for as long as I care to remember. Arguably, they have been able to stretch their existance this far by way of car loans having been available to pretty much everyone with a pulse as their product has been pretty much impossible to push out the door without the help of incentives, zero percent financing et cetera.

My posts have never disputed that, and your reply doesn't address the quote it follows.

The terminal patient = Union disease and political misjudgement and bad management.

That's why singling out one person in one of the above groups is tantamount to PR fraud, as over here with Fred. Maybe Obambi got the idea from Clown.

[elster]

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.

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 st hits the fan, and fans don't get much sttier than GM's current ventilation arrangements.

But surely it would be better to get those companies to try and turn themselves around with the bailout.

Now you have a new person in charge, so things will take a long time to get rolling.

This one man has not been the reason for the destruction of the worldwide car industry.

Who is replacing him?? Anyone know?

[900T-R]

turbobloke said:

.

That's why singling out one person in one of the above groups is tantamount to PR fraud, as over here with Fred. Maybe Obambi got the idea from Clown.

Ballcocks - the perks of the job are given on the assumption that the CEO is responsible for the end result including the things you don't have any control over. Just like it is for the rest of us. Bad result = no job. Don't like the risk? Don't get the job. If the board members don't do their job properly, presumably because of their allegiance ot the same old boys network, the next best thing is that the ones who are elcted by the public to sort this mess out, make their hands dirty.

Again, personally I'd rather that the whole shebang went into Chapter 11 and let the market sort out the true value of the parts that make GM, but that's a choice none of the parties involved is willing to make (yet).

[elster]

900T-R said:

turbobloke said:

.

That's why singling out one person in one of the above groups is tantamount to PR fraud, as over here with Fred. Maybe Obambi got the idea from Clown.

Ballcocks - the perks of the job are given on the assumption that the CEO is responsible for the end result including the things you don't have any control over. Just like it is for the rest of us. Bad result = no job. Don't like the risk? Don't get the job. If the board members don't do their job properly, presumably because of their allegiance ot the same old boys network, the next best thing is that the ones who are elcted by the public to sort this mess out, make their hands dirty.

Again, personally I'd rather that the whole shebang went into Chapter 11 and let the market sort out the true value of the parts that make GM, but that's a choice none of the parties involved is willing to make (yet).

So you want the whole of the executive staff to be fired. After all they should ALL take the blame. They do get paid accordingly as you say.

[turbobloke]

900T-R said:

turbobloke said:

.

That's why singling out one person in one of the above groups is tantamount to PR fraud, as over here with Fred. Maybe Obambi got the idea from Clown.

Ballcocks

I say!

And...I still say you're not right

900T-R said:

Again, personally I'd rather that the whole shebang went into Chapter 11 and let the market sort out the true value of the parts that make GM, but that's a choice none of the parties involved is willing to make (yet).

[Fittster]

elster said:

900T-R said:

turbobloke said:

.

That's why singling out one person in one of the above groups is tantamount to PR fraud, as over here with Fred. Maybe Obambi got the idea from Clown.

Ballcocks - the perks of the job are given on the assumption that the CEO is responsible for the end result including the things you don't have any control over. Just like it is for the rest of us. Bad result = no job. Don't like the risk? Don't get the job. If the board members don't do their job properly, presumably because of their allegiance ot the same old boys network, the next best thing is that the ones who are elcted by the public to sort this mess out, make their hands dirty.

Again, personally I'd rather that the whole shebang went into Chapter 11 and let the market sort out the true value of the parts that make GM, but that's a choice none of the parties involved is willing to make (yet).

So you want the whole of the executive staff to be fired. After all they should ALL take the blame. They do get paid accordingly as you say.

Isn't this a good example of why high executive compensation is a waste of shareholders money?

[elster]

Fittster said:

elster said:

900T-R said:

turbobloke said:

.

That's why singling out one person in one of the above groups is tantamount to PR fraud, as over here with Fred. Maybe Obambi got the idea from Clown.

Ballcocks - the perks of the job are given on the assumption that the CEO is responsible for the end result including the things you don't have any control over. Just like it is for the rest of us. Bad result = no job. Don't like the risk? Don't get the job. If the board members don't do their job properly, presumably because of their allegiance ot the same old boys network, the next best thing is that the ones who are elcted by the public to sort this mess out, make their hands dirty.

Again, personally I'd rather that the whole shebang went into Chapter 11 and let the market sort out the true value of the parts that make GM, but that's a choice none of the parties involved is willing to make (yet).

So you want the whole of the executive staff to be fired. After all they should ALL take the blame. They do get paid accordingly as you say.

Isn't this a good example of why high executive compensation is a waste of shareholders money?

No I think high executives should be just like sales. You get a basic wage and profit based bonuses. Gives people an incentive to make things work.

[900T-R]

elster said:

No I think high executives should be just like sales. You get a basic wage and profit based bonuses. Gives people an incentive to make things work.

And let the next exec deal with all the 'little' things the former one has managed to hide in order to make the numbers look good?

[10 Pence Short]

900T-R said:

elster said:

No I think high executives should be just like sales. You get a basic wage and profit based bonuses. Gives people an incentive to make things work.

And let the next exec deal with all the 'little' things the former one has managed to hide in order to make the numbers look good?

How would things be if there was no incentive for success?

[elster]

900T-R said:

elster said:

No I think high executives should be just like sales. You get a basic wage and profit based bonuses. Gives people an incentive to make things work.

And let the next exec deal with all the 'little' things the former one has managed to hide in order to make the numbers look good?

What you mean just like now? Except without the profits, and the profit based incomes?

It is a more logical system than the current one.

How do you propose things should be done?

[DJC]

How have we made the leap from Obama telling Rick to sling his hook to Obama running GM?

Personally Id have made Wagoner redundent as soon as he asked for my dosh along with the rest of the Board.

Thereafter I would be impressing upon the new board of GM that mother is the neccessity of all invention and they have 12 months of funding to come up with nwe products to sell and trade their way out of trouble otherwise they can say hello to Chapter 11. That way you give them funding, you give them incentives but you also leave them with the knowledge that they are on a strict grace period after which the market can take them or leave them.

Id offer that to all the big 3. That would be my helping hand towards the industry and they could take it or leave it. Each Board member goes on the same salary as the tealady and tough luck.