Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
I stayed out of this for a while because DG was handling himself quite well...
But here's the facts, and I challenge you to prove me otherwise:
The government has not directly effected any of GM's vehicle plans.
The government has no interest in controlling GM, in the short or long term.
The treasury owns 60% of the company, so they have a right to appoint seats on the board...but make no mistake, they only want to see the balance sheets and care nothing for the product side of things.
Whitacre, right now, is leading the push to do things that are RIGHT for the company. Doing ONLY what's its best interests. What do you have to dispute that?
I'm really frustrated reading all the "I'm right, you're wrong" messages in here, because all I've read to support it so far is menial points that provide a foundation for what a person WANTS to believe...not what's actually happening.
|
Interesting claim because yours is also an "I'm right, you're wrong" perspective.
In every one of your "facts", I could say the exact opposite and challenge you to prove otherwise, and you couldn't because you have already decided what you're going to believe.
I'll answer your questions more directly though than setting up straw men like DG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
The government has not directly effected any of GM's vehicle plans.
|
I noticed you qualified that with "vehicle" to avoid explaining why Obama personally forced GM to keep their headquarters in Detroit.
That aside, on the "vehicle" issue, do you think the EPA's unprecedented decision to award the Volt a 230MPG rating wasn't politically motivated? I guess not, because I can't produce the email from Obama to the EPA telling them to hype the Volt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
The government has no interest in controlling GM, in the short or long term.
|
You can't prove a negative, but it's the same issue as above. The burden is on you to explain how someone who isn't controlling the company can personally decide where the headquarters of the company will be located. Also, explain why the union contracts weren't voided during bankruptcy like they would have been in any normal corporate bankruptcy case. You need to effectively explain those two FACTS before I can buy the Obama administration isn't controlling the company even though the Government owns it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
The treasury owns 60% of the company, so they have a right to appoint seats on the board...but make no mistake, they only want to see the balance sheets and care nothing for the product side of things.
|
As to the product, see my Volt comment above. As to the ownership, that in itself is a statement of control. You said they "own" 60% of the company, and "appointed" the board of directors, but somehow, they don't control it. It's simply an absence of logic to believe that.
If Warren Buffet appointed everyone to the board of directors of a company, you would get laughed out of the room to suggest that despite that, he doesn't control the company. But somehow, because it's a political issue and Obama said he isn't running the company (which he HAS to say to maintain political decorum), logic is checked at the door and one's political belief system takes over.
Look, I bought a Camaro, so I obviously don't care enough about the issue to make a purchase decision based on that, but I'm also not going to drink the cool-aid and pretend that the decisions made by the GM board aren't going to be politically based, considering they were in essence, political appointments.