General Motors Death Watch 168: Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

87 Responses to “ General Motors Death Watch 168: Straight from the Horse’s Mouth ”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All Reverse Order

• Pch101 :
  March 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
  
  

  How do you know it’s “revisionist”?

  Moyar describes himself as a revisionist, so if you don’t care for the label, take it up with him.
  
  By every account the US was not defeated militarily in Vietnam.

  That’s a pointless argument. The US failed to achieve its objectives and ultimately had to leave. That’s a political defeat, by any measure. The fact that the kill ratio was high in favor of the Americans did nothing to secure victory.

  This is a classic case of the parable of the blind men and the elephant, one of missing the big picture by fixating on one aspect that comprises only one part of the equation, then further misinterpreting the result.

  The US was unable to successfully occupy and stabilize Vietnam, and was unable to convince Americans of the worthiness of the cause. That’s a defeat. This is not a football game, where the body count serves as a scorecard. This was ultimately a political conflict, and you can only gauge success or failure by the political outcome, which was dismal.

  So it’s understandable why you’d miss the connection with the auto industry as well. You seem to think that because GM hasn’t failed in every respect that it therefore must be a success, when success is measure by other means entirely. The ultimate measure of success for any business is sustainable profitability, and that is a mission at which GM has utterly, miserably failed. Giving a pay increase to a guy who was instrumental in the failure seems misguided at best, but not surprising given the failures of GM’s board. Mediocrity begets mediocrity, and during times of crisis, mediocrity will just not do.

• Robert Farago :
  March 21st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
  
  

  OK, guys, enough with Vietnam. I can see the parallels and so forth, but this is about General Motors and TTAC is about cars in general.

  Nor is this about me. I remind you that TTAC does not allow discussions of our editorial stance or style underneath unrelated posts. Anyone who wishes to discuss this subject is free to email me at robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com to engage in that discussion,

  Please move on.

• yournamehere :
  March 21st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
  
  

  who is the highest of the “higher-ups” the site has actually had a interview with? Im sure RF has contacted plenty of people over at Big 3. They are obviously reading the website since they know who you are. I would love to here a 10 minute podcast with Bob Lutz.

• folkdancer :
  March 21st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
  
  

  Having funds tied up in a poorly performing investment doesn't make sense. When the investment is as large as GM it can hurt our country. Liquidating GM and putting the real estate, machinery, and labor to better uses would be, in the long run, good for our country. This is what corporate raiders do. When they see a badly performing company they analyze the company to see what value it has.

  Cerberus Capital Management at Chrysler is a good raider because they try to save the company if possible but when that isn't possible the company is broken up and sold off in pieces if necessary to recover the purchase and make a profit. We should look forward to a raider stepping in to save GM from its present managemant or to breaking it up and putting it out of its misery. Under no circumstances should we use tax money to save GM. GM has been in operation for approximately 100 years which is amazing for any company in any industry and now maybe it is just too old, too fat, and too tired. But tying up capital for mostalgia doesn't make any sense.

• Dynamic88 :
  March 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
  
  

  I’m not sure it makes any difference what question was asked because the chances of getting a straight answer out of Bobus Maximus are pretty slim.

• geeber :
  March 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
  
  

  Given all the discussion regarding David Halberstam, it may be time to remember his 1986 book that explored the decline of Detroit and the rise of Japan - The Reckoning.

  He compared Ford to Nissan…which, given subsequent events, probably wasn’t the best choice. After the book came out, Ford prospered with the original Taurus, then with the Explorer, while Nissan began its downward spiral.

  Robert McNamara (who rose to the top at Ford before joining the Kennedy Administration as Secretary of Defense) doesn’t come off too well in that book, either. Halberstam ties McNamara to the rise of top managers who really didn’t have much of a “feel” for cars themselves, and regarded the actual business of making and selling cars with disdain.

  McNamara and his protege, Ed Lundy (who would go on to wield enormous power within Ford), were more concerned with balance sheets and stock prices than with cars.

• ra_pro :
  March 27th, 2008 at 10:36 am
  
  

  I must disagree with all those saying Farago should have asked a more relevant question than whether the pension of Lutz is bankruptcy-proof. Think about it, the question is essentially about the possibility of Chapter 11 for GM which relates directly to the oldest and most common theme of this site name GM Deathwatch. But it’s not just a generic question about the future of GM, in fact its nicely tied to Mr.Lutz personally through his pension. There is a million different angels Mr. Lutz, the Straight-shooter, Maverick, Tells-it-as-he-sees, could have taken to answer it. Instead he chose just to brush it off like any other pesky reality intrusion into his personally fiefdom where he doesn’t even have to know his personal finances. He ain’t no Maverick just an old, senile clown.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All Reverse Order

Leave a Reply Back to Top

You must be logged in to post a comment.