Filed under: Government/Legal, Ford
Mulally: Car Czar should keep hands off product decisions
Now that General Motors and Chrysler have accepted Federal assistance in the form of low-interest bridge loans, the two companies may not have many choices available to them if a Fed-appointed individual were to make product recommendations to senior management. In fact, that's exactly what the so-called car czar would likely do, under the guise of keeping an eye on the interests of the taxpayers who funded the automakers' revival. Ford, though, has not accepted any assistance yet, and it hopes not to.
Recent comments made by CEO Alan Mulally may offer a glimpse as to why the Blue Oval's so hesitant to take a handout. After expressing that he's looking forward to working with the incoming Obama administration, Ford's CEO said, "My god, I hope that a car czar does not get into the product strategy of the companies," specifically referring to whether the car czar should decide who makes police cars and taxis. Hopefully, whoever is appointed to the position (if anybody is at all) would have abundant experience in the American automotive world, lest something really bad should happen.
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Gary Lowe 9:06AM (1/14/2009)
The almost bankrupt US government, with their $10 trillion dollar Ponzi scheme called financing the national deficit about to unwind is now going to tell the auto industry how they should manage their business. Great idea!
Reply
latterlon 9:19AM (1/14/2009)
Amen. God Speed to Mr. Mulally. The car czar shouldn't even be a considered posistion within the government. I am afraid that the companies taking these bailouts are going to get what they deserve, sadly enough, and we the consumers are the ones that will suffer.
The greatest Ponzi scheme of them all is Social Security.
Mobius_1 9:24AM (1/14/2009)
In economics, I learnt that governments run a budget deficit to boost economic growth and rack up debt, but run a budget surplus to cool inflation and pay back debt in a boom.
Maybe policy makers collectively went to sleep in economics class after the teacher taught the first bit.
Noidor 12:16PM (1/14/2009)
GL - you are exactly right...that's precisely what we have in this country. It is merely a ponzi scheme not unlike that of Madoff. Bring in new investors just to be able to pay off returns to existing ones.
Anyways, central planning has never worked and sure as hell wouldn't work here in automotive industry. Who wants bunch of communists telling automakers what cars to make? Look how well Russian cars were built. It's beyond stupid to think that a car czar would help.
The Luigiian 1:58PM (1/14/2009)
@Mobius 1:
Actually, sounds to me a lot like what our policy makers have done. The Clinton Administration cut spending during the dot-com boom, until we had a surplus. Then the Bush Administration went into office in a recession, so spending increased.
Sea Urchin 9:20AM (1/14/2009)
Car czar is not there to say what car to build or not to build, he is there to say ohhh Mr. CEO the company is losing money, maybe you should get a smaller salary and give up a private jet.
Also, if Mullaly or anyone have problems with car czar, the companies can simply return money back to the government and do whatever, build scooters, jets or file for Ch 7.
Reply
John P. 9:28AM (1/14/2009)
This is the best thing Mullaly has done so far at Ford. The government, (Bankrupt years ago, Financially and Morally) in charge of how Companies make cars is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. We're in deep trouble if people think that's a good idea.
sean collins 5:18PM (1/16/2009)
Do we know if there is any concrete sign of tighter financial market regulation - never mind a 'bank czar' who has any say over city bonuses and how they run things, even in the most general terms.
Mobius_1 10:36AM (1/14/2009)
Right, they should all do as the czar says because Russia used to be so much better with their czar in place.
one2gamble 5:40PM (1/14/2009)
Ford didnt take any money so Mulally could give this czar the finger and it wouldnt matter.
Avinash machado 9:24AM (1/14/2009)
Just hope that the Car Czar won't be someone like Ralph Nader.
Reply
geo.stewart 9:31AM (1/14/2009)
JAcques Nasser for Car Czar
AntBee 9:38AM (1/14/2009)
What a stupid and absurd position! Let's hope it's just someone's imagination run wild thinking the US Government should have a "car czar."
Reply
jpm100 9:52AM (1/14/2009)
I can see it now. Al Gore.
Reply
Smegley 9:55AM (1/14/2009)
I think the car czar is a "fantastic" idea. Being at the beck and call of some idiotically clueless political appointee is the best way to encourage GM and Chrysler to pay back those loans as quickly as possible and tell the government to go to hell and then never again get themselves into such a predicament.
Good God I loathe politicians.
Reply
Sea Urchin 10:02AM (1/14/2009)
Ever heard of whoever pays orders the music? Government pays GM and Chrysler so they can do what they want. If Gm or Chrysler have a problem they can give money back. Simple as that.
But they can't do that can they? Because companies are dead, financially and morally.
bill 10:10AM (1/14/2009)
Uh, good luck with this one. I expect Congress will pass legislation making it a felony for design to talk with engineering, and the bean counters will be sequestered in their own room with no contact with anyone but Nancy Pelosi.
Reply
zamafir 10:12AM (1/14/2009)
Well let's be real here, Mulally's doing damn near everything right, he halved fords losses last year and is looking to be in the black this year, he's bringing cars to market which excel over any automaker ie the new fusion hybrid. He's one who should be talking on the issue because he's doing things right. Had Lutz or Nardali made the some comment I don't think it would carry the same weight (with me or anyone else who actually measures a CEO/Chairman/whateverthehell by their ability to adapt to change). GM and Chrysler still need a serious reshuffle as exemplified most recently by how long it took GM to commit to a small car for the US or Chrysler's reluctance to commit to building a wonderful mid sized car (the 200C) and instead keep up the smoke and mirrors Ev concepts they have no money to seriously produce.
It's nice to see at least one head of a domestic company knowing what' he's doing.
Reply
Rob 10:18AM (1/14/2009)
Mulally was smart to keep Ford off the government dole. Fedzilla has done such a great job with Social Security, public schools, and everything else they touch, why not let them run the car companies too? I can't wait until they run my health care. GM and Chrysler are doomed. They'd be better off reorganizing under chapter 11.
Reply
ello 10:39AM (1/14/2009)
Actually I wouldn't mind if healthcare was controlled by the government. It's the most basic thing that we all need. Without good health none of us can accomplish anything. Public healthcare has been available in Western Europe for years now and it is definitely better working than what we have here in USA where you almost gotta have a Ph.D to figure out what your insurance covers (and all the percentages) and what doesn't, then be on the phone trying to argue without effect, and in major cases where tens of thousands of dollars are involved you'll probably end up with a lawyer. I have lived in both, Europe and USA and when it comes to healthcare I definitely prefer the European way.
To put it in perspective, this years Fortune 500 top 10 most profitable companies were of pharmaceutical origin, in fact, those 10 companies generated more profit then the remaining 490 companies put together, I understand that everyone needs to make a living but human health is a rather sensitive subject to talk about. Best example is US medication, the exact same medicine which was manufactured in US costs a lot less than what you would buy at your local pharmacy store, in fact a lot of especially elderly people organize trips to Canada to buy medicine there.