Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
Well it's a good thing the gov't doesn't design their cars. 
So far, the treasury board members have had no say in day-to-day operations. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
The reduction in dealerships, the renegotiated UAW contracts, fewer brands, new financing arm (coming soon) ... all of those have listed as key elements to why GM failed.
I know of several examples of profitable crown corps (thats what we call government owned & operated businesses up here) and several that are nothing but a money pit. But what does that have to do with this? GM isn't being run by the US, Canadian, or Ontario governments. There isn't some government committee making product planning decisions. Why would they even bother when they can make laws that dictate what every automakers has to sell?
|
Can anyone give a single specific example of an American government owned entity that proved successful in the long run?
It was reported last week that the new financing arm is coming through the acquisition of a lender that specialized in sub-prime car loans. Sounds like more of a potential disaster than even GMAC.
As for the government is not running the operations arguments, I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Are you suggesting that the government is not interfering with/installing members of the board and key management personnel by executive fiat? The government may not be running the companies directly, but their puppets are.