Once again, money talks and execs will walk

19 thoughts on “Once again, money talks and execs will walk”

  1. She has been in decision making positions at GM for a looong time (30 years seems to be what I heard.)
    What a scam – and the US taxpayers loosing money…and people died (collateral damage – minor issues)
    Won’t buy GM vehicles.
    Annoyed one of my young nephews works there in design (and as a new hire, he got a bonus like everyone else right after the bailout…they love the bonus – they’ve been to Hawaii one year, Paris another, Germany/Europe…thank you tax payers…sorry you can’t afford a vacation….maybe you should work for GM…then you might know which cars not to buy, too.)

    1. I still think it’s a suspicious “coincidence” that their first female CEO was named just as this all came to light. But right now I’m suspicious of everything they do and have continued to do. And I’m still pissed that my tax dollars were used to bail them out.

  2. Same Downunder. Same company, same hands out. Difference being that all anyone has to do is start bleating about JOBS FOR AUSTRALIANS to get whatever they want. This time, no. But the fact that GM is pulling out of Oz is for their own benefit, not ours.

    1. Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders. That’s just a fact. Any benefit to a nearby community is secondary. But neither should the corporation do any harm.

  3. I thought that very same thing as I saw the newly appointed female CEO taking all the heat. I started out thinking it was a good thing to save all them American jobs, but this just goes to prove how very, very wrong I was….

    1. That was my rationale at the time. At least they were saving American jobs and were being given a second chance, a chance to change and do better …

  4. Stockholders would be better served by corporations allowed to profit from their mistakes. Same for voters.

    As long as corporations needn’t learn because of expected government bailouts, their stockholders needn’t depend on moral corporate officers whose strategy is to build trust of its customers.

    As long as voters continue to elect Republican and Democratic politicians who support corporatism, they needn’t expect any change either. That’s why I NEVER vote for candidates from either of the big two parties.

  5. Everything you say about GM is sadly true, PT, but I think it would be a mistake not to view this in perspective. Big business is here to stay and it lives in symbiosis with national economies. It would be nice if cars and trucks were built by mom-and-pop shops where true competition reigned, but that isn’t practical. The behemoths reign, but they are supported by vast networks of small suppliers and if the giants die, so do those networks. Government is compelled to figure out how to deal with that reality, and it is doing so, even if only clumsily and tardily.

    I read recently that Toyota was fined a whopping $2 billion for transgressions similar to GM’s, a record amount, so GM is not alone in its faults. The system is working and the modern automobile is a model of comfort, safety and efficiency for the most part. Why do I think that? Because I can still remember the old cars: gas-guzzling, polluting, power-nothing, dangerous (no air bags, not even seat belts). Flats were common and carburetors and distributor points needed regular overhaul. We have come a long way with this highly-regulated industry which, for all its faults, is one of the few that still employs millions of Americans at decent wages.

    All that said, your criticisms of GM’s stale designs and policies are true and it will be a cold day down under before I buy one of their machines.

    1. We do, of course, advance and acquire new knowledge and technology. Without the regulations forcing them to do so, I’ve no doubt that automakers would continue to take the cheapest route and if gas-guzzling polluters were cheaper, that’s all they’d offer. Ditto seat belts, airbags, etc. Competition also might force some changes, if anyone were forward-thinking enough to lead the pack.

      I understand that these companies are among our largest employers. That’s one reason GM was bailed out. It had nothing to do with the quality of their cars. They were “too big to fail” by virtue of the number of jobs they represented.

      There’s always a reason, isn’t there, why the big dogs never go to jail, even when their greed has cost lives. I’m thinking, too, of the energy companies (oil spills anyone?), pharmaceutical manufacturers, bankers, etc., as well as the automakers. Paying big fines when they screw up is just considered part of the cost of doing business. The cost should be higher. Somebody should be in prison. When people die because other people deliberately or negligently hid a flaw or mistake, somebody should do some time. Perhaps the threat of prison (the real thing, not a country club) would make the white collar bigwigs think twice about their actions. Obviously fines alone are not accomplishing anything.

Leave a Reply to GuntaCancel reply