Fox New Just Reported, GM Board of Directors Gone Also.

[Georgie]

the road to serfdom... of course our elite political masters know better!

[dbotsfordtat]

I wonder why AIG management with close to 200 billion tax dollars isn't suffering a similar fate? That really bothers me.

[BigRigMike]

Originally Posted by dbotsfordtat

I wonder why AIG management with close to 200 billion tax dollars isn't suffering a similar fate? That really bothers me.

The CEO's of AIG, Fannie, and Freddie were canned as conditions of bailouts.

Libby replaced Willumstad before the first $85 billion bailout of AIG.

[Scott@Bjorn3D]

I think the Camaro will sell, I do think though we may be getting the last of V8's though. GM just needs to be smart and keep Camaro but I know I am going to get yelled at BUT NO Firebird.

To much repatition with having both cars and that is what killed Camaro and Firebird before.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

You find me a single person...or even a "team" of people that can turn around a behemoth like General Motors in the time some of you people expect. He turned them. Not a total 180°, and no -- he wasn't perfect. But they're a different company from the one that existed 10 years ago, and it's largely because of Wagoner and his team. For heaven's sakes -- it was Wagoner who begged Lutz to come back and oversee the product revolution that's taken place in the past 5 years.

(And don't give Apple as an example: They threw up a few "i-this" products, and took the world by storm with a gimmick. They nearly created the Mp3 player market, so it's no wonder they're doing well...name a segment in the auto business today that a company hasn't explored, yet....)

He's a scapegoat, and nothing more. Because that's what people want to see: Firings. Dismissals. Nobody understands whats going on, but obviously it's somebody's "fault". So somebody must "pay". It's the absolutely idiotic mob-mentality that's sweeping the nation af late -- and of all the issues; that is the one that scares me the most.

My heart bleeds for this guy...collateral damage to preserve the company.:(


How so? I have a few rebuttles, but I'm genuinely interested in what 'proof' you have of that?

Man, are you kidding me? Do you think it's easy to become a giant in any industry? It was just luck that Apple makes amazing products that people want? No, it's not. Apple went from going almost bankrupt to being a behemoth in multiple industries and try as you might there's no way in hell you can just dismiss that.

There has to be a complete overhaul of how GM is run. It's a huge job and Wagoner obviously didn't want to be the one to do it. GM hasn't posted a profit since 2004 and there needs to be something done about it.

Originally Posted by BigRigMike

The CEO's of AIG, Fannie, and Freddie were canned as conditions of bailouts.

Libby replaced Willumstad before the first $85 billion bailout of AIG.

Yet no one here is complaining about that. It's because they're personally invested in this company and they think things should be done the way they want.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Man, are you kidding me? Do you think it's easy to become a giant in any industry? It was just luck that Apple makes amazing products that people want? No, it's not. Apple went from going almost bankrupt to being a behemoth in multiple industries and try as you might there's no way in hell you can just dismiss that.

It's called...a GIMMICK. Do they make attractive products? Yes. Are they they best in the market? HELL No!! They're usually priced higher than similar competition and underperforms them to-boot, but it doesn't matter...because it's an Apple. And they weren't on the map until the Ipod came out, anyways. I'm not dismissing their success, but they owe a gret deal of that success to a last-ditch effort little music player that took the younger generation by storm. They've been riding that wave ever since, with the Imac, and the Iphone.....

Originally Posted by DeathChill

There has to be a complete overhaul of how GM is run. It's a huge job and Wagoner obviously didn't want to be the one to do it.

Oh, really?
So....he didn't want to push GM into China and become one of the leading auto manufacturers in that market....he didn't want to improve product design and performance a million-fold....He didn't want to improve quality and cut warranty coverage by half....He didn't want to cut costs and streamline all the brands into 4 distinct management structures, instead of 8....He didn't want to negotiate a ground-breaking labor contract in 2007, that cut entry-level pay in half, and transfer the healthcare burden to the union....and he didn't want to do the Volt, either....there's more that I'm just not thinking of at the moment.

The guy isn't a god -- but he's being used as a scapegoat, because nearly everyone who says "he has to go" seems to be ignoring all the above. All they see is the balance sheet -- which although important, doesn't tell the full tale. Not by a longshot.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It's called...a GIMMICK. Do they make attractive products? Yes. Are they they best in the market? HELL No!! They're usually priced higher than similar competition and underperforms them to-boot, but it doesn't matter...because it's an Apple. And they weren't on the map until the Ipod came out, anyways. I'm not dismissing their success, but they owe a gret deal of that success to a last-ditch effort little music player that took the younger generation by storm. They've been riding that wave ever since, with the Imac, and the Iphone.....

No one said they're the very best but they make a great product that people want. Apple prices things so that they make a profit and it's obviously a price that people are willing to pay or they wouldn't be where they are.

The iPod definitely helped them out, which allowed them to work on their other core businesses. I don't know how you can turn a GIMMICK, as you call it, into multiple world dominating businesses. It's not as if they only have the iPod going for them at this point.

The iMac existed before the iPod, just so you know.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Oh, really?
So....he didn't want to push GM into China and become one of the leading auto manufacturers in that market....he didn't want to improve product design and performance a million-fold....He didn't want to improve quality and cut warranty coverage by half....He didn't want to cut costs and streamline all the brands into 4 distinct management structures, instead of 8....He didn't want to negotiate a ground-breaking labor contract in 2007, that cut entry-level pay in half, and transfer the healthcare burden to the union....and he didn't want to do the Volt, either....there's more that I'm just not thinking of at the moment.

The guy isn't a god -- but he's being used as a scapegoat, because nearly everyone who says "he has to go" seems to be ignoring all the above. All they see is the balance sheet -- which although important, doesn't tell the full tale. Not by a longshot.

Who said he didn't want to do these things? How many of those were accomplished (honestly curious)?

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.

[justmeron]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Paranoid. The Camaro has a solid future for this generation, at the very least. And so long as the rest of the fleet compensates for any mileage deficiet -- future generations will be fine, because it will sell (and that's the real decider). And with upcoming cars like the Cruze and the Volt, together with advanced technologies being invested in....I don't see any reason to worry too much about a single car. Especially not one as exciting as the Camaro.

Kewl thanks buddy.
I can get a little paranoid at times.

[bigralph]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

How so? I have a few rebuttles, but I'm genuinely interested in what 'proof' you have of that?

I'm sorry but the proof is there. How could the government step in fire the CEO and board members? The government should of said you know what your plan suck and go back to the drawing board GM. If the plan still suck the government has the right to get the tax payer money back and let GM go to chapter 11 or 7. That is how the free market should work but not take over the whole company like they are doing. Also why didn't government fire AIG and banks board members as will?

[Mr. Wyndham]

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.

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".

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.

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by OverAnxious

Nobody in charge of a company that goes downhill should keep a job.

This is a fundamental rule within free enterprise that has been lost over the last decade. Worldcomm, AIG, GM, etc - used to be that the CEO was the first to get the boot when a company started going bad. Now a companies board of directors are so full of it's CEO's buddies, they have gone from governing the direction of a company to governing the protection of the CEO....

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by Scott@Bjorn3D

I think the Camaro will sell, I do think though we may be getting the last of V8's though. GM just needs to be smart and keep Camaro but I know I am going to get yelled at BUT NO Firebird.

To much repatition with having both cars and that is what killed Camaro and Firebird before.

I agree with you on all points except the "NO FIREBIRD"..I will be the first to yell out that once the Camaro sales die down in a few years to a normal pace, then the Firebird may be exactly what GM needs at that point or a classic revitalized Pontiac GTO that looks cool, then that may be the best direction..



The guy above that is going to be the car czar( Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers.
) looks like someone who is on the BRAVO channel's fashion shows....

Next thing you know Obama apoints Richard Simmons as the Health and Fitness director/czar.. lol

[DeathChill]

I'm not sure how you can try and ignore the SUV point.

"The mistake, again, was not having enough cars to supplement those."

This is not a small mistake. You can't put all your eggs in one basket and then complain when it turns out you picked the wrong basket. GM made a HUGE mistake in that regard and has continually made big mistakes.

Rick Wagoner had EIGHT years to turn the company around and the company is still not doing well (the recession is obviously not helping, but lets be honest the recession only accelerated their problems). Any other CEO would have been ousted A LONG time ago.

I'm not saying Rick Wagoner is a horrible person or horrible businessman, but he's just not the guy GM needs to save the company at the moment.

EDIT: Also, to be clear all of the bailed out banks either have a new CEO or are bankrupt.

[bigralph]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

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.

I'm sorry, but don't have evidence to back up my statement. To me it sounds like a government take over by firing CEO and board members, but what the hell I know. I just want my camaro like everyone else in here.