Bailout Watch 38: GM President Does His Own Spinning

Cammy Corrigan
by Cammy Corrigan

Troy Clarke, President of GM’s North American operations, decided answer back on some issues plaguing GM while addressing students at Southern Methodist University (home of the George W. Bush Presidential Library). Clark started with the usual PR blurb; GM is one of the largest auto manufacturers in the world, and that they bring us household brands, like Chevrolet, Buick, Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer and Cadillac. Well, until they kill Pontiac and sell off Hummer. And Buick slips in the shower and dies. While we could read into Clarke’s reference to GM as “one of” the world’s largest automakers rather than calling it “the largest,” there were other gems from the presentation. Clarke went on to trumpet GM’s phenomenal fuel economy stable: they have 18 models that get 30 mpg or better. Ray Wert trashed this myth previously: these 18 cars represent 30% of GM’s overall line up, whereas Toyota’s and Honda’s 30+mpg club represents 55 and 60%, respectively. Then came the thorny issue of “the bailout”. Or not. Because it’s not a bailout. Is it? Clarke told the crowd that actually, it’s not a bailout. It’s just a return for the taxpayer. Nice! “Congress has mandated an industry average of 35 mpg or better by 2020,” Clarke said. “This was the figure that they thought was reasonable and would not bankrupt the car companies, but it just depends on how valuable sooner results in this facet are to the American taxpayer.” Fancy that! Even though, I’m not a United States’ taxpayer, I’d hazard a guess that citizens would want their taxes spent on things like roads, defense and fixing social security, rather than a company run into the ground by clueless executives.

Cammy Corrigan
Cammy Corrigan

More by Cammy Corrigan

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 13 comments
  • Areitu Areitu on Sep 12, 2008

    monkeyboy: Check out what happened (or didn't happen) at a recent military march of a holiday in N. Korea recently. blindfaith : An American family-owned business the rights to an additive that a number of German machines needed and managed to make a lot of money off of that during the war.

  • Redbarchetta Redbarchetta on Sep 12, 2008
    blindfaith I'm not sure who you think was trying to recreate history. No one is saying they didn't manufacture a lot of weapons during WW2 but that was 60 years ago. We need steel, ships, munitions, air planes, banking, food etc., right here. We have all that here already, not sure what your point is. My point was we have dedicated military manufacturers and if added capacity is needed again it can be handle just the same as before but using Toyota, Honda, etc. You must forget that Americans work in those places, just because they aren't UAW branded doesn't mean they wouldn't jump right into the effort. And the government has the capacity to use those factories, labor and resources as they need during a wartime effort, whether the owners like it or not, just look at GM and Ford production in Germany under Hitler. The Big 2.8 can barely handle the car biz handing over highly advanced weapons production to them might not work out to well, something they would have to be accountable for. Would you want your life to rely on a Chrysler build tank transmission. Just because they don't get bailed out doesn't mean they will disappear, they just wouldn't continue on in the form you are used to, it's called evolving. Propping them up doesn't force them to change to meet the times. Toyota isn’t going to come to our aid if North Korea goes ballistic. Japan is reliant on teh US for their defence, especialy in a major conflict, if we get hit they get hit worse. Last time I looked at a map North Korea and Japan weren't that far apart and don't have good relations. Toyota, Honda and Nissan would probably offer up their factories, labor, and money before we even asked if any sort of conflict that might threaten them were to happen. I agree that we import way too much stuff. We need to start making our own stuff in house and quit buying cheap disposable crap. Man I hate Walmart.
  • Oberkanone Tesla license their skateboard platforms to other manufacturers. Great. Better yet, Tesla manufacture and sell the platforms and auto manufacturers manufacture the body and interiors. Fantastic.
  • ToolGuy As of right now, Tesla is convinced that their old approach to FSD doesn't work, and that their new approach to FSD will work. I ain't saying I agree or disagree, just telling you where they are.
  • Jalop1991 Is this the beginning of the culmination of a very long game by Tesla?Build stuff, prove that it works. Sell the razors, sure, but pay close attention to the blades (charging network) that make the razors useful. Design features no one else is bothering with, and market the hell out of them.In other words, create demand for what you have.Then back out of manufacturing completely, because that's hard and expensive. License your stuff to legacy carmakers that (a) are able to build cars well, and (b) are too lazy to create the things and customer demand you did.Sit back and cash the checks.
  • FreedMike People give this company a lot of crap, but the slow rollout might actually be a smart move in the long run - they can iron out the kinks in the product while it's still not a widely known brand. Complaints on a low volume product are bad, but the same complaints hit differently if there are hundreds of thousands of them on the road. And good on them for building a plant here - that's how it should be done, and not just for the tax incentives. It'll be interesting to see how these guys do.
  • Buickman more likely Dunfast.
Next