If a company gets big enough and sick enough that its impending collapse forces the US govt to commit many tens of billions of public dollars, that company can no longer expect its board of directors to "call the shots". Why should they, after running the company into the ground?

We've been talking about GM's impending collapse here for at least a year. I think most of those threads recognized that Wagoner's head was at risk of rolling, and many posts fairly clamored for it. Why are you surprised that it has finally rolled? I'm surprised he kept his job this long.

this might be just the beginning -I hope. I worked for the guy and there are plenty worst just bellow him. If GM is to survive more execs will have to follow him.....

But that's been a major contributor to what has caused the problems a lot of companies are going through right now.

Too much emphasis was placed on performance, as measured by the stock price. Too many execs and companies made stupid mid and long-term decisions that placated the day-trader crowd that wanted unrealistic returns in the immediate and very short term.

It's easier said than done to measure the performance of a large company, at least when trying to quantify it for a benefits or compensation package.

+1

The stock value is NOT the measure of a company's performance, and should not be how executives are compensated!

George Will is right. The US government should not be running an auto company.

GM should declare bankrupcy and reorganize. Good-bye shareholder values and good bye board and top management.

It's inevitable now anyways

A GM bankruptcy filing, without financial support from the govt, will end in liquidation. The company will not be able to reorganize. That would effectively collapse the supplier base, which will take down Chrysler and Ford too.

If there is financial support from the govt, e.g. to enable GM to emerge from bankruptcy, the govt must have some say in how GM is run. That is simply political reality, and after being embarassed by the likes of AIG, the govt is even less likely to lend many billions of dollars without holding a leash on the company.

That's the real-world situation. George Will and other pundits have the luxury of writing OpEd pieces without being responsible for actually accomplishing anything.

Wagoner may not have been the solution but he wasn't the problem either. As the mentioned there are brick walls in place that prevent the company from succeeding until restructuring.

GM needs to be allowed to fail and I suspect the top management is begging for it to happen sooner rather than later but they can't admit it publicly. GM is a very "powerful" company and once the handcuffs are removed we may all be impressed with the result(s).

Oh no, the sky is falling.:eek:

The political "reality" - is that you cannot run an outfit like GM out the White House. Rahm is going to decide whether Buick survives and Joe-B is going to pick next year's plant closings??:rolleyes:

I am not saying no financial support - I am saying bankruptcy - followed by a realistic plan to reorganize. The present bloated nature of the company, plus legacy costs and union contracts need to be swept away to keep it a viable automaker.

Time to oust the whole board - they have failed. Time to oust top management - they have failed. Time to destroy all shareholder value - they have been given more than the company is worth. Time to break all contracts and labor agreements.

Ever hear of British Leland??

I doubt that the auto czar will try to micro-manage a company the size of GM, to the extent of choosing plants to close or which nameplates and dealers to terminate.

Hard to see what upside the govt see from doing that, and unlikely a govt official would want to be so directly responsible for the resultant pain to workers/voters.

Wagoner had the power in his hands to wean the company from SUV and pick up profits and focus on the future. He didn't take that chance. Anyone can take the easy road, the one that says, "All is well, so it must end well."

Sorry, didn't. Now someone has to move the constipation out the door and feed in some new tactics. If they wanted to, they could pull the rug out from under Tesla. Any huge company can smother a little company whenever. Wake up the customers, they are apathetic.

And, GM can reinvent itself as the new Toyota. Come out of the blocks with a whole ***tload of small, cheap, well made, high millage commuters. If history repeats itself (likely), they can build the luxury into them as they become a fixture in most driveways.

Usually the best business model is to find one that works already and improve on it with the goal of taking market share from the model being bettered. Now, if I can see that and Wagoner can't, then goodbye to him and about 4000 other white collars.

Today!

Not to detract from American workers, managers or executives - that would take 60 years of hard work and continuous improvements.:(

I think taxpayer cash is looked upon as the better alternative..:rolleyes:

Well, Ford isn't far away on this. It didn't take them 60 years. Getting rid of Jaguar, and hopefully Volvo, and becoming once again the builder of the world's cars is what it's all about.

Remember this guy named Henry?

[QUOTE: George Will and other pundits have the luxury of writing OpEd pieces without being responsible for actually accomplishing anything.

I like what Will has to say from time to time but that is right on the money...


.

So he should have jettisoned the only profitable lines and focus on the lines that have historically shown little to no profit?

I'm going to have to disagree.

BTW, what line is selling and making money off small commuter cars? There is a reason the Toyotas and Hondas have gotten bigger and the only players in the commuter market are Korean slave labor jobbies.

Well, they aren't very profitable these days. I would substitute transitioned for jettisoned. Little or no profit sounds good these days. Do all companies have to work for the good of the stockholders while not working for the good of society? Look at the stock now.

And, if you see how the Toyotas, Nissans and Hondas have gotten bigger, that's going to be their Achilles heel. They are still foreign companies, I don't care how much they manufacture here. They had to come here to pare down the transportation costs, but they still ship parts here and take the profits home.

I'm not ignorant enough to tell you that every nut and bolt, plus the finished product can or will be made in Detroit, but I can tell you that while the Giant was sleeping, David came in and has all but delivered the final and lethal blow. Let's make this a real sci-fi story and pretend the Giant gets smaller, faster and harder to defeat.

Old School Wagoners who have been with the company for ages are just so much dead meat on the bone. Let's get to the bone.

I'll ask you, John...since you seem fully in support of Government now managing GM...

Can you name one Government run automobile company that has been successful?

It's not about Wagoner's head rolling...it's about who fired him...

At least it's just OpEd pieces.

The govt has the luxury of spending trillions of dollars and indebting an entire generation without being responsible for actually accomplishing anything.

Not immediately jettisoned, but you do have to properly product plan more than a few months out. Ignoring all product planning and only focusing on developing what will sell in the next month is not the way to run a massive car company.

Super point!