Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathChill
Who said he didn't want to do these things? How many of those were accomplished (honestly curious)?
|
Everything I mentioned was 100% achieved...and then the economy busted. Affecting both their credit lines, and those of their customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathChill
Let's just be honest here, he screwed up majorly. He even ADMITS THIS:
"As CEO, Wagoner focussed on highly profitable but fuel guzzling SUVs and light trucks. Ignoring Toyota, Honda, and Ford's progress with the gas-electric hybrid cars and SUVs, Wagoner directed GM's research efforts to hydrogen powered vehicles. In an interview, Wagoner stated that the worst decision of his tenure at GM was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. "It didn’t affect profitability," Wagoner claimed, "but it did affect image" In the end, Wagoner's choice did effect more than image. In a market with high demand for hybrid and electric vehicles, and leading to observations that GM, under Wagoner's leadership, failed to see clearly obvious trends."
It's also noted that he doesn't have the brutality required to bring the company back from bankruptcy. It sucks but that's the reality of the situation: you NEED to be brutal when your company has lost $73 billion under your run.
|
I never denied that. In fact, I mentioned the hybrid thing earlier in the thread.:( The board was the blockage there, not just Wagoner -- because every product must be approved by the board. And at the time (this isn't an excuse...though it sounds like one), Hybrids were all talk. They aren't cost-efficient for either the company nor their customers, they aren't pretty, and they're difficult to pitch to a board of directors interested in nothing but profit. The EV1.....I have no comment besides "it was ahead of its time".
And the SUV thing...is a conversational piece and no more, imo. The issue was NOT that they had too many SUVs...or that they "forced SUVs upon the market"...the problem was that they didn't have enough attractive cars. When the market flipped (as it so often does), GM didn't have an adequate portfolio in that segment. But the SUVs sold in high numbers, they were in demand, and they were profitable...what idiot wouldn't stand behind those. The mistake, again, was not having enough cars to supplement those.
Another point to consider, is that the foriegn makes were POURING money into SUVs and truck programs right before gas went up...so it wasn't as though this was a "detroit thing".
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigralph
I'm sorry but the proof is there...
|
I was hoping you wouldn't say that. I feel as though this "government take over", and "nationalization" thing is far overblown to the point of fear-mongering...but that's not for me to decide. I just wished you had some evidence of a grand scheme to take over the Industry as you insinuated -- which is why I asked.