Bailout Watch 548: WaPo Carmudgeon's Departing Salvo

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Regular readers will know that we’ve taken Washington Post carmudgeon Warren Brown to task for his shameless Motown cheerleading up to and through the federal bailout. You may have also noticed a huge disconnect between Warren’s blind bailout boosterism and his paper’s entirely skeptical stance on federal intervention in the U.S. automotive industry. In an ironic twist of fate, Warren’s decided to take the WaPo’s latest buyout offer—and do so with all of the grace displayed by his bailout boosting pals in The Motor City. He leaves the paper spilling vitriol all over his colleague’s rejection of Uncle Sam’s “investment” in Government Motors.

I’ll begin [my endless swan song] by arguing against the often inane analyses of the challenges facing the domestic automobile industry, sometimes served up on the editorial and opposite-editorial pages of this otherwise fine journal.

Was that really necessary? Anyway, first, Warren regurgitates all his own pro-dole pro-GM arguments.

We owned General Motors in World War II and in the Korean conflict when we needed it to build tanks and other weapons of limited destruction.

We owned it when we needed it to help build what once was the free world’s strongest middle class . . .

And we owned it after the devastating 9/11 attack on our nation, when it was GM that pulled us from the economic brink and got consumers buying again through a savvy marketing campaign.

I know! Let’s set that to the Lemonheads’ version of Mrs. Robinson! Anyway, Warren sets ’em up . . .

In commenting on the new GM’s future, Robinson writes: “In truth, I don’t see much more than a temporary reprieve [from ultimate failure] for General Motors and a somewhat easier landing for GM workers. Obama said he plans to leave management of the company to the professionals. At this point, I have to wonder why.”

And Warren knocks ’em down . . .

The “bad management” that trapped GM and Toyota in their current unhappy states occurred at the federal level, where politicians repeatedly failed to come up with a sensible national energy policy, balanced to require participation, however painful, from automobile manufacturers, politicians and consumers.

The bad management that slowed sales of new domestic and foreign vehicles to a barely sustainable trickle occurred among federal regulators who were supposed to regulate the banking industry, but who apparently failed to regulate anything of any kind.

So GM’s meltdown is the government’s fault? And now the government will save GM? Yeah, that makes sense.

As for placing bets on future longevity: Here’s betting that GM will be around a lot longer than many of the traditional news outlets — print and broadcast — covering GM today.

On this, we agree. Bt first we should come up with a timeline for the death of traditional news outlets. Judging from this piece and Warren’s departure, it’s not going to take long.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 13 comments
  • AG AG on Jun 08, 2009

    Wow, I had no idea Debbie Stabenow was so huge.

  • Nevets248 Nevets248 on Jun 08, 2009

    yep, when she sits around the house, she sits AROUND the house. Oh,and here from the not-so-great state of Michigan, we refer to her as "stab-and blow"!

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next