PDA

View Full Version : The New GM "GOVERNMENT MOTORS"



ULTRAMAN VH
04-01-2009, 01:36 PM
U.S. Plans Key Role In Naming GM Board
Government's Sway Over Firms It Aids Is Topic of Debate

The Obama administration will play a key role in reshaping General Motors' board of directors over the next six months, potentially giving it even greater control in the management of the storied American manufacturer.

The president's auto task force plans to consult with the company as it replaces a majority of its board, a White House official said. The board today largely consists of the current and former chiefs of major U.S. corporations such as Coca-Cola, Ernst & Young, Pfizer and Eastman Kodak. It is not known which of the 12 board members will leave.

The president said Monday that "the United States government has no interest in running GM." But in practice it is already exerting tremendous influence over it, a situation that has triggered fierce debate over how much power the government should wield over the companies that it aids.


Kent Kresa, 71, GM's new chairman, said yesterday that company officials will seek to replace a majority on the board by August, as the automaker moves to restructure operations.

"There will be continuing coordination as decisions about the leadership of the company are made," a White House official said yesterday. "Folks from the autos task force will be involved in those decisions."

Kresa, a former Northrop Grumman chief executive who has been a GM director since 2003, was selected to be chairman by the Obama administration after it ousted chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. on Sunday. Fritz Henderson was named chief executive.

Some critics characterize the White House's removal of Wagoner as a move toward European socialism. In addition to forcing leadership changes at GM, President Obama on Monday said that Chrysler must strike a partnership with Italian automaker Fiat, and that GM must further cut its already shrunken workforce and product lines.

"They have opened Pandora's box -- the U.S. government has decided they know better than the private company," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) "There is no question that this country is moving down a very different and foreign path. We have crossed this threshold: We own this company and we are telling it what to do."

But defenders say the government must make changes at the ailing companies to safeguard the billions of dollars being invested by taxpayers.

"There's a new CEO and new chairman of the board," said Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.). "The government will play an active role as with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other institutions with a major investment from taxpayers."

Levin turned aside the possibility that the government will run the company.

"It's clear they want this restructuring accelerated with the corporation taking a leading role," Levin said.
Even before Wagoner's ouster and the nomination of Kresa, the government has been taking steps, large and small, to shape the operation of General Motors.

The December loan agreement, under which the company received $13.4 billion in loans, required among other things that the company establish new limits on expense reporting, executive privileges and compensation.

But the coordination with the government affects what appear to be smaller matters as well.

For example, yesterday GM announced a new "Total Confidence" program for consumers that offers a warranty, an OnStar traveler's assistance system and a promise to pick up as much as $500 a month of car payments for buyers who lose their jobs.

"The government is aware of it, completely supports it," Mark LaNeve, head of GM's U.S. field marketing, said yesterday in announcing the program.

Meeting with reporters, GM's new chief executive Henderson said the company would work diligently over the next 60 days to win the concessions needed to return the company to viability. He said the restructuring plans must "go deep, go harder and go faster" in order to comply with the demands of the Obama administration.


The company is willing to use bankruptcy proceedings if necessary to shed its overwhelming debts, he said.

He said the company and stakeholders prefer to stay out of court, which "does involve risk" and could hurt the company. But a team is working on that strategy in case it becomes necessary, he said.

"I do think we are capable of doing it out of court," he said. But in court or out of court, "we're going to get the job done."

Currently, its massive debt is a key burden for General Motors. It owes the United Auto Workers health plan $20 billion and has another $27 billion in outstanding bonds.

Under the government's proposed reorganization for General Motors, the union health plan and the company's bondholders would give up much or most of those claims in exchange for an equity stake in the reformed GM.

Given the magnitude of the swap, many analysts think those two entities could wind up with a majority of company stock.

The board has recognized for some time that the company's restructuring will likely cause a significant change in the stockholders of the company" chairman Kresa said in a statement. This would "create the need for new directors with additional skills and experience."

Another key stakeholder in the company, of course, would be the government, which has lent the company money but does not own any shares. And many analysts believe that whoever the shareholders may be, the government's interest will matter most.

"Obviously, the government has a voice as an investor," said Charles Elson, head of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. "But it's not like the government speaks as one voice among many. It becomes the overwhelming voice."

The government, bondholders and the union will all be competing for influence, said Ronald J. Gilson, a law professor at Stanford and Columbia, who is a corporate governance expert.


"It's going to be a very fractious place," Gilson said. "There will be large shareholders who have specific interests."

Board members currently come up for review every five years and generally are allowed to serve until age 72. The company's shareholders would likely have to approve any board nominees. GM is scheduled to hold a shareholder meeting in August.

Noting that he will report to the Treasury and to the company's board, Henderson said yesterday: "We have two boards of directors."

Staff writer Perry Bacon Jr. contributed to this report.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines (http://www.washingtonpost.com)

ULTRAMAN VH
04-01-2009, 01:44 PM
Oh Boy, now we have a group of politicians whom have never run a business in their lives, telling automakers how to run their business. I have a GM vehicle and can't wait for Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi to change the timing belt on it. The Prez did state that Government Motors would honor my warranty.

LoungeMachine
04-01-2009, 01:49 PM
What's your plan, then?

How would you have handled this?

I'm dying to hear it.

:gulp:

hideyoursheep
04-01-2009, 01:54 PM
More than happy to take the handout, though.

Heckufa job, Richie!

:rolleyes:

hideyoursheep
04-01-2009, 01:55 PM
The current GM

Guacamole Motors

Redballjets88
04-01-2009, 02:04 PM
Even though Obama says the gov't has no intentions to run gm, he is still the guy that will calling the shots until he sees what he likes.

Coyote
04-01-2009, 02:19 PM
Where's a Lee Iacocca or a John DeLorean when ya need one?

LoungeMachine
04-01-2009, 02:31 PM
Even though Obama says the gov't has no intentions to run gm, he is still the guy that will calling the shots until he sees what he likes.

What would you do, genius?

Why wasn't this handled during the Bush Years you think were so great?

:gulp:

Still haven't heard YOUR solution.

Matt White
04-01-2009, 02:33 PM
Well....considering BUSH Co. wouldn't talk to them for 7+ years...

"Currently, its massive debt is a key burden for General Motors. It owes the United Auto Workers health plan $20 billion and has another $27 billion in outstanding bonds."

Hmmmm...so...GM is in business to provide health care...

Incredible that the Automobile Industry has been left to the wolves...and so many Americans don't think they'll be touched by MICHIGAN's woes...the wake up call was years ago people...and BUSH ignored it...now we get to reap the benefits....

Redballjets88
04-01-2009, 02:45 PM
What would you do, genius?

Why wasn't this handled during the Bush Years you think were so great?

:gulp:

Still haven't heard YOUR solution.

There isn't a clear cut answer to this situation.

After posting my last reply I realized out of all the options I'd rather have the government there than not there. Especially since GM has shown that they can't run their own business.

LoungeMachine
04-01-2009, 03:19 PM
There isn't a clear cut answer to this situation.

After posting my last reply I realized out of all the options I'd rather have the government there than not there. Especially since GM has shown that they can't run their own business.

Exactly my point.

:gulp:

Guitar Shark
04-01-2009, 03:47 PM
There isn't a clear cut answer to this situation.

After posting my last reply I realized out of all the options I'd rather have the government there than not there. Especially since GM has shown that they can't run their own business.

Translation:

"I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Government bad, though!"

LoungeMachine
04-01-2009, 04:01 PM
Translation:

"I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Government bad, though!"

:D

I don't remember the Bushies screaming about Socialism when they were throwing money at Wall Street and AIG last year.

The 2 biggest problems facing US automakers, is they've dragged their feet and are woefully behind the europeans with regards to fule effiicency [although FORD makes cars for that market which get 40mpg]

And second, the FUCKED UP healthcare system in this country adding way too much to the cost of each vehicle.

If the Big 3 had spent half as much time concentrating on making vehicles people wanted, and less time fighting and lobbying DC, they wouldn't be in the mess they are today.

I dont want the government making my cars. I want the government providing infrastructure, security, affordable healthcare, and strong regulations of industries that effect our lives.

:gulp:

Kristy
04-01-2009, 06:24 PM
Of course the Rethuglicans have all shoved the collective thumb up their asses and claim this is Obama's sure-fire solution into introducing us all to the ways and means of "SOCIALISM!" Oh no!

Okay, I could quite possibly agree with that Rethuglican logic if:

1. A Rethuglican can actually define what socialism is

and

2. Detroit could build a car worth a shit in the past 30 years.

I have no sympathy for GM. They had to know this day was coming and to blackmail the American taxpayer by saying their demise is a "security risk" is fucking insulting. Back in 1991 when Papa Bush first bombed Iraq and gas prices shot up and "global economic advisers" told GM to change their ways when it came to fuel mileage and building a safer car when they shit on by the likes of Kresa. Instead, they gave America the 'Yukon' and 'Sierra' which turned out to be our nation highways great gas-sucking eyesores (next to the Ford Excursion).

Instead of designing something that was economical for the American consumer GM played their heavy hand by slamming Japanese and Euro-trash imports (like what I drive) by bad mouthing both and lobbying Congress for higher tariffs claiming it was the only way to say competitive. Fuck you, GM and your arrogant laziness. You got what you deserve.

LoungeMachine
04-01-2009, 07:30 PM
:gulp:

Exactly.


We're just now waking up with the room spins and shithammer hangover from the last 8 years, and the RePukes among us want to blame today for yesterday's indulgences.

whatever.

Time to reap what BushCo sowed for 8 years....

swage33
04-01-2009, 08:20 PM
How could you still want government health care after this example? Don't you think that Obama will try to reduce costs? He will tell us what we can and cannot consume.

alexpgrimes
04-01-2009, 08:50 PM
Where's a Lee Iacocca or a John DeLorean when ya need one?
DeLorean is dead...lol this situation has been coming for along time. you cant blame bush for this.

LoungeMachine
04-01-2009, 09:17 PM
How could you still want government health care after this example? Don't you think that Obama will try to reduce costs? He will tell us what we can and cannot consume.

I want SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE regulated by The Government.

The Life and Health of citizens shouldn't be a motive for insane profits.

:gulp:

kwame k
04-01-2009, 10:11 PM
Basic necessities should be regulated by our government. Are any of you deregulators pissed off that the government regulates how food is produced? Our energy, health care, schools and other services should be regulated by our governments and why not. What the fuck do we pay taxes for then. Fuck Wall Street and fuck the banks. Use are tax dollars for the people who pay them.

FORD
04-01-2009, 11:21 PM
DeLorean is dead...lol this situation has been coming for along time. you cant blame bush for this.

As in Chimpy himself, no. As in the BCE and the entire last 28 years of completely fucked up economic & trade policies, yes.

So that's Chimp, his daddy, and Clinton. You could say "Reagan" as well, but that was just Poppy hiding behind the actor in front of the camera.

hideyoursheep
04-02-2009, 12:45 AM
Instead of designing something that was economical for the American consumer GM played their heavy hand by slamming Japanese and Euro-trash imports (like what I drive) by bad mouthing both and lobbying Congress for higher tariffs claiming it was the only way to say competitive. Fuck you, GM and your arrogant laziness. You got what you deserve.
That could go both ways.

American autos can't be unloaded as easily overseas as foreign cars are here.

The outrageous tariff on US cars almost guarantees little or no competition with what would be that country's domestic product.

But with the shitty designs and style of the so-called economy cars or sedans, yes, GM had definitely dropped that ball years ago.

BITEYOASS
04-02-2009, 08:57 AM
Oh Boy, now we have a group of politicians whom have never run a business in their lives, telling automakers how to run their business. I have a GM vehicle and can't wait for Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi to change the timing belt on it. The Prez did state that Government Motors would honor my warranty.

How about you stop listening to your master Glenn Beck!?!? While your at it, you can put the garlic and wooden stakes away, because Obama isn't a vampire.

Seshmeister
04-02-2009, 09:15 AM
But with the shitty designs and style of the so-called economy cars or sedans, yes, GM had definitely dropped that ball years ago.

Yeah but that's what happens when you don't allow proper competition.

hideyoursheep
04-02-2009, 09:58 AM
Yeah but that's what happens when you don't allow proper competition.

What do you mean?

swage33
04-02-2009, 07:15 PM
I want SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE regulated by The Government.

The Life and Health of citizens shouldn't be a motive for insane profits.

:gulp:

Agreed. But, once the government has a stake in it....how can it not influence its will in the interest of the taxpayers?

Seshmeister
04-02-2009, 07:49 PM
What do you mean?

I'm no expert on the US auto market but it seems to me any time you get into tariffs or protectionism it fucks things up.


Protectionism and Politics (http://www.america.gov/st/econ-english/2008/June/20080608122606xjyrreP0.9163782.html)

Protecting Automakers

Protection can also affect higher-value products such as automobiles, an industry that at various times has been protected by powerful political interests in Japan, Korea, China, and the United States.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. auto industry faced its first major challenge from foreign competition as Japanese automakers aggressively entered the American market. As Japan's share of the U.S. market grew, the Big Three U.S. automakers—Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors—convinced the federal government to impose a cap on the number of cars Japan could ship to the United States. In 1981, the Reagan administration agreed to impose such restraints, despite President Reagan's free market philosophy, because the auto and auto parts industries were major employers in the United States. Moreover, such employment was largely concentrated in a number of politically pivotal states—Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois—that exerted a great deal of influence in Congress and in presidential elections.

The annual import limit had the perverse effect of encouraging Japanese car companies to change the product mix of vehicles they shipped to the United States, sending more upscale models, where the profits were greatest, and fewer smaller, cheaper cars. It is estimated that, at its peak in the early 1980s, the quota was transferring $5 billion a year in additional profits to Japanese automakers, who could sell their quota-limited cars at a premium. Despite this protection, the U.S. auto industry continued to lose market share to Japanese producers because Toyota, Nissan, and Honda simply jumped over the trade barrier and began manufacturing cars in the United States.

So the tariffs forced the US car makers to the lower end of the market. Also any time you impose tariffs you can bet the country you do it to will respond with their own which hurts your exports.

Ally_Kat
04-02-2009, 07:55 PM
Basic necessities should be regulated by our government. Are any of you deregulators pissed off that the government regulates how food is produced? Our energy, health care, schools and other services should be regulated by our governments and why not. What the fuck do we pay taxes for then. Fuck Wall Street and fuck the banks. Use are tax dollars for the people who pay them.

Schools aren't regulated by the gov't? We have state learning standards, state teacher certification (which you cannot teach without unless it's a private school -- and even then...), school admin certification, high-risk tests that will hold students back if they fail, and charter schools monitored by some state/gov't agent just to name a few.

The only ones not under some sort of gov't watch are the private schools, like religious schools, who do not get any sort of tax money funding. But, even with those, they have to follow the state learning standards.

kwame k
04-02-2009, 10:18 PM
Schools aren't regulated by the gov't? We have state learning standards, state teacher certification (which you cannot teach without unless it's a private school -- and even then...), school admin certification, high-risk tests that will hold students back if they fail, and charter schools monitored by some state/gov't agent just to name a few.

The only ones not under some sort of gov't watch are the private schools, like religious schools, who do not get any sort of tax money funding. But, even with those, they have to follow the state learning standards.

Ally, I know schools are regulated and rereading my post I can see where it looks like I am saying they should be. My point being, certain things should be regulated by our government be it local, state, or federal governments. Cops, fire, 911 and other services are regulated by governments and they should be. I do not see how basic services shouldn't be regulated by governments.

ULTRAMAN VH
04-02-2009, 10:26 PM
How about you stop listening to your master Glenn Beck!?!? While your at it, you can put the garlic and wooden stakes away, because Obama isn't a vampire.

I don't recall insinuating that he is a vampire, but he is proving to be a big spender. In just two-thirds of his 100 days as president, Vlad The Impaler OOPS! Sorry I meant Barrack Hussein Obama has spent more than any president to date and grown big government larger than any administration. Oh and don't forget the 140 million he blew on his historic inauguration. Although it is still a rediculously large amount of money, I believe passed Presidents only spent about 40 million for their extravaganzas. Gosh, he could have taken 100 million and made a payment on the National Debt or made a donation to America's homeless. Now that would have been "CHANGE".

LoungeMachine
04-02-2009, 11:03 PM
. In just two-thirds of his 100 days as president, Vlad The Impaler OOPS! Sorry I meant Barrack Hussein Obama has spent more than any president to date and grown big government larger than any administration. .

Link?

Source?

Facts?

:gulp:

ELVIS
04-02-2009, 11:31 PM
The Obama administration will play a key role in reshaping General Motors' board of directors over the next six months, potentially giving it even greater control in the management of the storied American manufacturer.

The president's auto task force plans to consult with the company as it replaces a majority of its board, a White House official said.

Regime change in six months ??

Then what ??

People will suddenly buy a car designed for the people ??

http://typetwelve.com/__oneclick_uploads/2008/10/obama-hood-car.jpg

Didn't Hitler do a similar thing ??

http://members.tripod.com/propagander2/vw11.jpg


:elvis:

hideyoursheep
04-03-2009, 12:25 AM
I'm no expert on the US auto market but it seems to me any time you get into tariffs or protectionism it fucks things up.



So the tariffs forced the US car makers to the lower end of the market. Also any time you impose tariffs you can bet the country you do it to will respond with their own which hurts your exports.
Notice how Japan was able to jump the barrier by building cars in the US...
Non-union plants, lower cost, in a market hungry for those cars.

GM could never do that. They can move operations to Mexico to circumvent import tariffs, but the quality and design flaws have caught up with them.


Still, the Japanese tariffs against US cars are much higher...not that anyone in Japan wants a Mexican-built H3 to roam around in...

The Japanese have learned to build big for the US market, but I fail to see where the big 3 have ever learned to build small for the rest of the world.


If the Chinese start building decent, reliable and attractive vehicles, LOOKOUT!

Seshmeister
04-03-2009, 04:22 AM
Europe have been bad for tariffs too but to be fair that's a French thing rather than the UK which is usually against that stuff.

I think they are self defeating these days.

FORD
04-03-2009, 04:46 AM
People will suddenly buy a car designed for the people ??


Didn't Hitler do a similar thing ??



Hitler may have been one batshit crazy genocidal BCE funded son of a bitch, but he was right about the Autobahn and the Volkswagen.

Too bad this model never made it to the US.....

http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/images/heritage/volkswagen_schwimmwagen.jpg
The "Schwimmwagen". Amphibious car.... would have been a great commuting car if you live around water. Let's see... do I wanna take the I -90 or 520 bridge today? Fuck it, I'll just drive across the lake!