By on December 5, 2016

GM: Barra at 2016 GM Annual Stockholders Meeting

President-elect Donald Trump has named General Motors CEO Mary Barra to his advisory board on economic issues and jobs growth.

While this could also be a coincidental slight against Mark Fields for publicly criticizing the new president’s repeated verbal attacks against Ford, this isn’t the first time Barra has been considered for unexpected political involvement this year. Hillary Clinton had shortlisted her as a possible running mate for the 2016 election. 

On Friday, team Trump made the official announcement that Barra would be included on a Strategic and Policy Forum that encompassed “some of America’s most highly respected and successful business leaders.” The forum is intended to provide Trump with direct advisement on economic issues in a “frank, non-bureaucratic and non-partisan manner.”

“We look forward to working with President-elect Trump, his team and other corporate and civic leaders on policies that support a strong and competitive economy and automotive industry,” Barra said in a statement provided to The Detroit News.

Last week, the transition team said “members of the Forum will be charged with providing their individual views to the president — informed by their unique vantage points in the private sector — on how government policy impacts economic growth, job creation and productivity.”

“This forum brings together CEOs and business leaders who know what it takes to create jobs and drive economic growth,” Trump said in a statement. “My administration is committed to drawing on private sector expertise and cutting the government red tape that is holding back our businesses from hiring, innovating and expanding right here in America.”

The forum is to be chaired by Stephen A. Schwarzman, chairman, CEO and co-founder of Blackstone, and includes numerous top-level executives from some of the United States’ largest corporations.

[Image: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

43 Comments on “General Motors CEO Mary Barra Chosen for Trump Advisory Panel...”


  • avatar
    threeer

    Why? It isn’t like GM hasn’t shilled production of US-bound cars to other countries (Envision, anybody?).

    I’m not holding my breath that even the new president will be able to do much to turn the tide of outsourcing, though I’m the first one rooting for America to stop the bleeding.

    • 0 avatar
      MAGICGTI

      GM and other companies outsourced production when it made sense to. Trump is going to have a backbone and make outsourcing less attractive through varied economic penalties and incentives.

      I’m a Trump fan, but find it tough to really blame companies for outsourcing when we’ve had NAFTA and spineless administrations.

      • 0 avatar
        threeer

        It’s a three-legged stool…companies chasing after bigger profit (lower cost), a government unwilling to change policy/procedure, and consumers driven by price. Ultimately, if the consumer was really that interested in saving American jobs, they would have “voted’ with their purchasing dollars. That said, I would like to see us grow a backbone and revisit our trade policies. Countries like China are more than happy to allow a very one-sided set-up that has benefited them tremendously. While I’m not a huge fan of government meddling, there has to be some toe-dipping to push the scales (at least) somewhat closer to parity. We’ll likely never recover the full extent of jobs that disappeared to the likes of China and Mexico, but we don’t have to make it so easy for other countries to run roughshod over us while we are made to bend over backwards to get a fair shot at their markets.

        We’ll see what the next administration does…but I’d love to see these business leaders give a fair and honest accounting to Mr. Trump of what it would truly take to make American manufacturing more competitive and then actually stand by that “if” the administration made changes to policy that reflected that. Again…ain’t holding my breath!

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Most manufacturing jobs have been lost due to automation aka robots.

          Walling off the country doesn’t work. If one is a capitalist then one must understand that the system exists to make profits for those with the industries.

          The USA boomed due to not having a global war within its own borders and through capitalistic free trade expansion. You can exploit another country’s manpower and resources directly via military conquest i.e. British Empire or Roman Empire or mostly through industrial and financial might i.e. USA.

          People deride Mexico or China for damage to the USA’s jobs but who set up shop in those country’s and why?
          USA industrialists went there to maximize profits by avoiding paying decent wages, providing benefits, the lack of environmental stewardship and the lack of human rights.

          • 0 avatar

            If I can hire people in Mexico, where a decent house costs $35,000, instead of the United States, where the same house would cost $200,000, am I really treating the Mexicans any worse if they get about the same standard of living?

            That to me is the tricky problem with opposing outsourcing – all you are doing by keeping jobs in the USA is subsidizing absurdly high housing costs …

          • 0 avatar
            agent534

            Free trade deals with countries having insanely low gdp per capita have the obvious effect, the people there will never be a market for your goods, they can’t afford it, only jobs and production will move to those countries. Back home economists will go on about increased total gdp because the profits go up for the top capitalists and the liberal solution is to tax them and redistribute to those who have lost their income to the globalist moves, that is how the think they can make it “fair” here. This ignores the people that just want a chance to work and earn their livings, to take pride in being a bread winner for their family. They will never understand the logic behind these betrayals by their politicians. They don’t care that the globalists think they are on a moral crusade to eliminate global poverty with free trade, what about the poverty here at home they seem to dismiss because of the country’s status as the richest in the world. These people have found a voice in the new administration, and hopefully the tide has turned against the globalists and policies that put other countries and corporations above concerns for those of the people of the USA.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “That to me is the tricky problem with opposing outsourcing – all you are doing by keeping jobs in the USA is subsidizing absurdly high housing costs …”

            This was the point of the “freedom of movement” clause of EU membership: you had open borders to capital, but also for labour. It actually works reasonably well*: lifting new member states’ quality of living and preventing enclaves of high-cost and cheap-labour pools from existing for very long.

            What we’ve done with NAFTA is allowed the (relatively) free movement of capital without allowing labour the same privileges.

            * until either a) capital gets greedy and enforces austerity on growing nations, or b) some populist gets his knickers in a twist.

          • 0 avatar
            rp2s

            That hits the nail on the head. AKA, greed.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            agent534 – globalization tends to do very little for the local populations. The locals get paid a pittance above subsistence and tend to work in unsafe conditions and are faced with pollution.

            Globalization under the guise of capitalism is just a way to exploit natural and human resources of an underdeveloped country without the need of military invasion.

            It is great for creating more billionaires.

  • avatar
    carguy

    A note of advice for Ms Barra: If Trump offers you Tic Tacs – run as fast as you can.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      Chastity belt with a built-in taser would seem needed for any female in the T-Rump admin.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      The tide is receding and GM will be exposed as incompetent, led by completely incompetent management/executives, once again.

      GM, ever since the reign of Roger Smith, has been among the worst run corporations in the world, consistently.

      The only time the sins and warts of the totally incompetent leadership is hidden from plain view is when strong truck & SUV hide what fundamentally, chronically is wrong with GM.

  • avatar
    laphoneuser

    Wait..there must be an error. “A person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women” (aka a misogynist) wouldn’t allow something like this, would he? I’m so confused.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    “Mary, how do we maintain jobs and help the economic health of large corporations?”.

    “That’s easy to explain Mr. President, since we’re both well familiar with the concept of quick-rinse bankruptcy….”.

    Was Alan Mulally not available?

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    Why? The only reason she has that position is a diversity requirement by the government as a prerequisite to the bailout.

  • avatar
    LTDwedge

    Whats good for GM, is good for the USA ! where have I heard that before ?

  • avatar
    HotPotato

    Stopped by for the sexism, was not disappointed.

  • avatar
    shaker

    “Stopped by for the sexism, was not disappointed.”

    redacted

  • avatar
    agent534

    GM is importing bucks from China. She is the last person I would get for an advisory board.

    GM already sells more cars in China than in North America but their China profits are around 10% of their NA profits and they have to partner with local Chinese companies to produce there. Why would they share their best market, NA with a Chinese partner? Maybe she is on to advise on how to open up China without those bs required local partnerships. I certainly hope Mulally is also on that board.

  • avatar
    HeyILikemySaturnOK

    Lately anytime I hear “Trump picks..”, I get worried but she is actually a good choice IMO. Barra seems like she has done right by GM so far and made headway into changing the culture a bit from what i can tell. There could be far worse choices here, we need all the sanity and sense we can get these days. Good for her!

  • avatar
    stuki

    And here we go again…..

    Yet another dimbulb-in-chief and his hope-and-changefulls set to wonder in a few years why, despite all the “great advice” Il Dunce received from his forum of CEOs about “helping the economiii”, middle class salaries continue to stagnate, while the salaries on the guys and gals in the forum continues to climb. I’m sure this latest clown, will be just as surprised as his predecessors…..


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Hummer: Jeez, I can’t imagine paying that much for 1 vehicle, $1,900 is what one could expect to pay for about 3-4...
  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?
  • JimZ: Funny, Jim Hackett said basically the same thing yesterday and people were flinging crap left and right.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States