General Motors Death Watch 251: Putsch Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

“G.M. is very different than Chrysler,” said Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff. “But I suppose the one lesson for G.M., and all the other players, is that this is a moment when a Democratic president said, ‘I am really willing to let a company dissolve, and there’s not going to be an open checkbook.’ There’s got to be real viability.” Huh? I was under the impression that this was the moment when a Democratic president said “I am NOT really willing to let a failed automaker dissolve. Uncle Sam’s checkbook is as open as a hooker’s gams. For the sake of political expediency, there’s got to be pretend viability.” Of course, it’s much worse than that. The White House has caught Detroit disease, where stupid decisions vie with no decisions for supremacy, leaving the status quo bruised and battered, but triumphant.

Like the Motown moguls that the Presidential Task Force on Autos (PTFOA) protects, all the president’s car guys’ dementia began with an idee fixee. Unlike Chrysler and GM execs, the PTFOA’s starting point had nothing to do with ensuring that they could afford to fly first class to Gleneagles for a round of golf and a hot stone massage for the Mrs. It was a simple question: “How do we save these failed companies (a.k.a. union votes)?”

At that point, the PTFOA developed a massive hardon for federal intervention that’s lasted a lot longer than four hours. Bad craziness was a given.

For example, the bureaucrats running GM’s car business—giving a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on any transaction over $10 million—swear up, down and sideways they don’t want to run a car company. PTFOA boss Steve Rattner has publicly declared that his employer will not “interfere” with GM’s decisions about brands or products. This at the same time that the PTFOA is planning to convert $22.8b of GM’s federal “loans” (so far) into a controlling stake in a newly reconstituted GM. Even The New York Times wonders WTF that’s all about.

Members of Mr. Obama’s auto task force say that even after the government owns a majority of the company, it will have no role in management. That, they say, will be farmed out to professionals, the work supervised by government-appointed members of a new G.M. board.

That doesn’t even make sense. The federal government won’t be involved in GM’s management, but the federally appointed Board of Directors will. And that’s totally different because they’ll be independent, right? Even though they’ll serve at the government’s pleasure. Anyway, I guess we can be thankful that the PTFOA has no desire to farm out GM to amateurs—although God knows I’d put my money on my fellow armchair executives before I’d “invest” a single dime on a GM suit. You know; if I had a choice.

I’m completely confused by the PTFOA’s reluctance to roll up its sleeves and tell GM how to build what for whom, where, what brand to sell it under and how to sell it. I don’t want the feds to run GM. But if they are running it—and they are—how can they do so without getting down to brand and product-related decisions?

Truth be told, the car business is about . . . wait for it . . . cars. If the feds are “protecting the taxpayers’ investment” in GM, they should start by firing all the people who had anything to do with GM’s current brand and product plans—before they make any more. How in the world does anyone expect Fritz “the Wagoner Clone” Henderson to make the correct pre- and post-bankruptcy car-related decisions when the ex-CFO has shown no ability to do so in the past?

By the same token, not firing marketing maven Mark LaNeve is proof positive that the lunatics are still running the asylum. This is the man who ran eight GM brands into the ground, destroying any and all brand equity through a massive miasma of mixed messages. I wouldn’t let LaNeve write a Craigslist ad for my minivan, never mind control a $3 billion ad budget. Why has no one rid GM of this troublesome man?

Again, I’m not in favor of Uncle Sam running GM. Clearly, they don’t have the appetite or the aptitude for the job. But as the Brits say, it’s time for the PTFOA to piss or get off the pot. Either the quango should take full responsibility for GM’s product-related plans (please, God, no) or offload this entire mess on someone else (liquidation or cough-Nissan-cough).

Either way, an immediate palace putsch would be a damn fine idea. Given that the PTFOA has already shit-canned GM’s CEO, there’s no reason to delay a more thorough housecleaning. Every day that the PTFOA allows GM’s current management to chart the automaker’s course makes reversing their lunacy more expensive. And less likely.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 48 comments
  • Geeber Geeber on May 05, 2009
    agenthex: This doesn’t address the point, your timeline is still wrong. A couple months here is not going to be critical in the grand scheme of product dev. Making sure the necessary changes are done well in the long run is far more important. When developing new vehicles, even a few months are critical. Especially when competitors aren't standing still, waiting for GM to right the ship. Once customers leave, it's extraordinarily difficult to get them back - especially in a mature market. GM does not have the luxury of time, if it wants to get back on its feet and compete successfully. If it wants to become the American Patient, that is an entirely different matter. agenthex: The only reason why it’s not a “depression” yet is due to massive gov intervention, and we may get there yet once first quarter numbers are in. The intervention was led by George W. Bush. What saved us was TARP, which was passed during the final months of his term. I can't wait until he receives credit for it... And to get to a depression, the unemployment rate would have to skyrocket...and, at this point, we haven't even reached the high point for unemployment set during the 1980-82 recession, let alone the Great Depression (unemployment hit 25 percent in 1933). And note that the unemployment rate is typically a lagging indicator - when it peaks, the worst is acutally over. agenthex: Once you reach the professional ranks, like AG office or scientific endeavors, they seem to work as their pay scale demands. Government entities still have differing expectations regarding how to manage costs and the speed needed to complete work, as compared to well-run companies in the private sector. Having worked in both, I can assure you that there is a difference - even if the government entity is well run. They simply are not as nimble or responsive as a successful company that must compete for consumer dollars. agenthex: In any case, it still hasn’t quite reached you that the running of this business is not the DMV or whatever you’re thinking of. I have no trouble understanding what is going on here. That is why I'm concerned. It helps to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of how the auto industry works. agenthex: It’s quite high visibility and likely accountability. That's a prediction on your part, not a statement of fact.
  • U mad scientist U mad scientist on May 05, 2009
    When developing new vehicles, even a few months are critical. This has no basis in reality. D3 have been building poor vehicles for decades, and it took that long for them to finally bit the dust (and they're still twitching). So you're only off by orders of magnitude. - The intervention was led by George W. Bush. What saved us was TARP, which was passed during the final months of his term. I can’t wait until he receives credit for it… While TARP and numerous other bank capitalization vehicles did save us, therein lies one of the larger ironies (and by ironies I mean deceptions) of the "conservative" ideology (and by ideology I mean dollar-store ideas meant to make a buck or billion). To avoid the impression of "nationalization", public money was given/loaned/etc to these banks with no ownership or control, and extremely little transparency to the public. While throwing enough $ at it will somewhat solve the problem, it was done in pretty much the worse way possible as far as spending public money is concerned. Remember these are imbeciles who argue over a few mil for a planetarium, and turn around and hand out a great many billions and respond with righteous indignation when questioned where exactly it's going. In this automaker case, we're actually seeing far more transparency and accountability, and it's very revealing how that part of the political spectrum is treating it compared to banking. - And to get to a depression, the unemployment rate would have to skyrocket It's generally measured by gdp (~10% p-p, which we may yet reach), but whatever since you're just making stuff up. Funny too you're using unemployment since these d3 bailouts are mostly about that, and here you are bitching about it even tho it seems quite a decent deal compared to the TARP et al you enjoy. - They simply are not as nimble or responsive as a successful company that must compete for consumer dollars. It's a good thing they're looking for private partners, right? Often times, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. It's like you're looking for something to whine about and just throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
  • Lou_BC "That’s expensive for a midsize pickup" All of the "offroad" midsize trucks fall in that 65k USD range. The ZR2 is probably the cheapest ( without Bison option).
  • Lou_BC There are a few in my town. They come out on sunny days. I'd rather spend $29k on a square body Chevy
  • Lou_BC I had a 2010 Ford F150 and 2010 Toyota Sienna. The F150 went through 3 sets of brakes and Sienna 2 sets. Similar mileage and 10 year span.4 sets tires on F150. Truck needed a set of rear shocks and front axle seals. The solenoid in the T-case was replaced under warranty. I replaced a "blend door motor" on heater. Sienna needed a water pump and heater blower both on warranty. One TSB then recall on spare tire cable. Has a limp mode due to an engine sensor failure. At 11 years old I had to replace clutch pack in rear diff F150. My ZR2 diesel at 55,000 km. Needs new tires. Duratrac's worn and chewed up. Needed front end alignment (1st time ever on any truck I've owned).Rear brakes worn out. Left pads were to metal. Chevy rear brakes don't like offroad. Weird "inside out" dents in a few spots rear fenders. Typically GM can't really build an offroad truck issue. They won't warranty. Has fender-well liners. Tore off one rear shock protector. Was cheaper to order from GM warehouse through parts supplier than through Chevy dealer. Lots of squeaks and rattles. Infotainment has crashed a few times. Seat heater modual was on recall. One of those post sale retrofit.Local dealer is horrific. If my son can't service or repair it, I'll drive 120 km to the next town. 1st and last Chevy. Love the drivetrain and suspension. Fit and finish mediocre. Dealer sucks.
  • MaintenanceCosts You expect everything on Amazon and eBay to be fake, but it's a shame to see fake stuff on Summit Racing. Glad they pulled it.
Next