Rehabbng GM - A Far, FAR, more balanced perspective

[whell]

The politics that drive "credit - taking" are well established. It's not exactly the most appropriate paper on which to write the history of a particular event. Critical historical elements, which often lay the foundation upon the success story that the "winners" would like to write, are understated or omitted in favor of individual or political glory-mongering.

Obama supporters, in particularly the Rattner-lead auto task force, wish to assume sole credit for the resurrection of GM. And most certainly, credit should accrue to this group for pulling GM out of serious financial trouble.

However, I have objected to the way in which the Administration and its protagonists would like to write the history the GM rehab. It ignores years of prior work by very competent and savvy individuals, without whose sacrifice, vision and toil we wouldn't have a GM to be still talking about. Without these individuals laying the pre-cursors to GM's turn-around, Rattner and Company would have had far tougher sledding, and may not have succeeded at all.

Here's a timely and appropriate companion to the Rattner book, with a far more "fair and balanced" perspective on what gave us the GM we have today.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...99s-turnaround

[piece-itpete]

That is very fair.

I reluctantly went along with the bailout because I thought selling GM to China for pennies on the dollar was a very bad idea. But it is true that the GM of today is a heck of a lot different than 10 years ago, all you have to do is drive my dads LaCrosse...

Pete

[merrylander]

GM of 10 years ago was pretty damn good, you could not ask for anything better than our two 2000 Impala LSs. GM's problem was a collection of Americans who took the attitude "Well my 1988 GM (product name) was a POS and I will never buy another GM or any other American car". Sure thing they would rather fund a bunch of foreign makes that are just lately suffering massive recalls, and about bloody time.

Sure they built some lemons back when, they all did, some just turned things around faster. The first Toyota Camry to hit these shores looked to have been hit with an ugly stick as it rolled off the line. The first Honda Civics in Canada rusted to rat shit in one winter. Nissans (Datsun then) were so rust prone that some enterprising chaps made a business out of aftermarket fiberglass fenders.

The Japanese learned faster than the Big 3, but lately seem to have gone full circle. I knew a chap with a Hyundai, 100,000 mile 5 year warranty but it seems to cover nowt, everytime he had it in the garage there was a three figure bill. It also ate headlamp bulbs, even stranding him in the dark one raining night. As the recent Ford ad claims South Korea sends us 25 cars for every one they let in to their market - free trade my arse.

[d-ray657]

It seems to me like the article acknowledges that federal intervention is the but for cause of GM's survival. One reason for the administration's highlighting the success of the federal intervention into the auto companies' financial situations is the way that they were lambasted at the time as socialism and as a give-away of taxpayer dollars. Now that seems like a savvy investment. It certainly was a wiser move than those who said to just let them fail (some of whom were obviously motivated by the desire to break the unions) when such failure would have been a critical blow to an economy that couldn't take any more punches.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

The politics that drive "credit - taking" are well established. It's not exactly the most appropriate paper on which to write the history of a particular event. Critical historical elements, which often lay the foundation upon the success story that the "winners" would like to write, are understated or omitted in favor of individual or political glory-mongering.

Obama supporters, in particularly the Rattner-lead auto task force, wish to assume sole credit for the resurrection of GM. And most certainly, credit should accrue to this group for pulling GM out of serious financial trouble.

However, I have objected to the way in which the Administration and its protagonists would like to write the history the GM rehab. It ignores years of prior work by very competent and savvy individuals, without whose sacrifice, vision and toil we wouldn't have a GM to be still talking about. Without these individuals laying the pre-cursors to GM's turn-around, Rattner and Company would have had far tougher sledding, and may not have succeeded at all.

Here's a timely and appropriate companion to the Rattner book, with a far more "fair and balanced" perspective on what gave us the GM we have today.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...99s-turnaround

does this anger keep you up at night?

you sound like a jealous parent on the youth soccer circuit

the bailout was a success, get over it

the GOP failed at failing GM

[piece-itpete]

Rob, I largely agree with you. A lot of thick-headed folks won't even look at American/Canadian cars ('domestic') let alone buy them.

Brock Yates said a couple of years ago that Toyota will become the next GM (meaning it'll have their old problems). It could very well be true, he's shown a remarkable prescience before.

Private sector unions are practically dead, the UAW already pretty much threw in the towel already as mentioned in the article.

We invented the bailout, remember? And since the feds are very good at market savvy, perhaps we should invest SS in the market

Pete

[merrylander]

Yeah Pete, I guess all those Southern Senators and congress critters are going to get their wish and the unions will fade into the sunset. Lincoln made a hell of a big mistake, he should have let them seceed.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

It seems to me like the article acknowledges that federal intervention is the but for cause of GM's survival. One reason for the administration's highlighting the success of the federal intervention into the auto companies' financial situations is the way that they were lambasted at the time as socialism and as a give-away of taxpayer dollars. Now that seems like a savvy investment. It certainly was a wiser move than those who said to just let them fail (some of whom were obviously motivated by the desire to break the unions) when such failure would have been a critical blow to an economy that couldn't take any more punches.

Regards,

D-Ray

I think the article attempts to give credit where credit is due - no more no less. Balance...I like it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

does this anger keep you up at night?

you sound like a jealous parent on the youth soccer circuit

the bailout was a success, get over it

the GOP failed at failing GM

I'm not the one engaged in making personal comments about a member of the forum. Anger? Ain't here. I think you're projecting.

[piece-itpete]

Rob, my bud who used to work at the old Chrysler plant in Twinsburg Ohio voted for it too...

The union bosses rec'd passage.

Under the new deal the new hires still get pretty darn good bennies compared to most manufacturing. The pay is more in the high teens though.

Pete