REPORT: Bill Ford, Jr. "shocked" at Wagoner's ousting
Bill Ford, Jr., executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, admits he was surprised at former General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner being asked to step down by the Obama administration. Even as Ford applauded the White House, saying "One of the things we've never had in the past is an administration that wants to pull all the parties together and figure out an energy policy and how to make a strong automotive industry and he is doing that," he also told CNN's Larry King: "I guess I never thought I'd live to see the day where the CEO of General Motors was dismissed by the President of the United States."Of course, Ford isn't alone in being shocked, but there is quite a range of opinion on the matter: Some say GM taking government loans (as opposed to private sector loans) changed the rules, and the government needed to protect its investment; others say it was government interference. Regardless, the way things are going, we would be surprised if that were the last "shocking" development in the car industry saga.
[Source: The Detroit Free Press]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
EU_reader 6:09PM (4/22/2009)
Let the partisan flaming begin.
Simpleminded rightwingers, not understanding the complexity of the modern day world, thinking only in terms of -isms... Here's your audience (again)
Reply
chilipepper 7:38PM (4/22/2009)
Your spelling and grammar are atrocious. Did you finish high school, lefty?
Willem B 7:54AM (4/23/2009)
EU_Reader
it's funny how you lefties always assume that all righties are idiots.
either way...
From my understanding the bailout to the automakers was a loan.
Have you ever heard of a bank giving out a loan to a company, and then firing their CEO for them? Hell no, the CEO is appointed by the board of directors which is voted in by the stock holders. In essence, those that own the equity in the company elect who runs the company... Not the bank...
Obama just reads whatever the media says, and then acts on it. He is all about PR, and that's it. He has no ethics of his own.
Firing Wagoner was a pure PR move, there was no gain to be had here... All Obama did was cause GM trouble trying to select a new CEO, and finding someone to fill the new CEO's old position, etc. There are no new people at GM's management, it's still the same old thing... It has not and will not make any difference.
Tom Castle 9:47AM (4/23/2009)
Obama didn't "fire" Rick Wagoner. The president can't "fire" private-industry employees. What Obama did was tell GM that they wouldn't get a loan unless Wagoner left. It was always GM's decision to make. They could keep Wagoner, in which case the government wouldn't give them a loan, or they could fire Wagoner and get the loan.
Any lending institution - ANY - could have struck the same bargain. The UAE could have swept in in its white robes and struck the EXACT same deal.
Yes, you right-wingers honestly do not know what you're talking about. EU Reader is correct.
tekd 3:35PM (4/23/2009)
Actually, his spelling was quite good. The grammar needs work, but his username is EU reader so maybe it's not his primary language.
At any rate, Obama only did what GM's boards should have done many, many, many years ago. I think Bill Ford knows plenty well how true that is, since he stepped down as CEO himself to let Mullaly fix the company and it's made all the difference.
seanthoman 2:48PM (4/26/2009)
EU as in European Union? Perhaps facism works well in Europe where it was born with Hitler and Mussolini, but will not fly long here in the USA. If you are a foreign investor in USA--I would highly recommend pulling your money out of USA, do not believe how great Der Furher Richard M Obama is by watching the US Main stream media. And if you have money in a US bank, pull it out, the Fed is one ponzi scheme ready to collapse.
Jake 6:13PM (4/22/2009)
Or simple-minded EU_reader, labeling people with prejudicial remarks.
Let's see:
You have to close your most profitable brand (GMC)
You have to make cars that don't sell well and that you can't see for a price that will make them profitable to make.
You have give a third of your corporate income to the government.
You have to use this labor even if you lose money doing it.
And the reason you fail is because capitalism doesn't work.
Love, Uncle Obama.
Reply
DKB_SATX 6:55PM (4/22/2009)
GM could easily have avoided the problems you're complaining about, with the POSSIBLE exception of the bits about "you have to make cars that don't sell well" (assuming you mean smaller-than-SUV efficient cars) and "give a third of your corporate income to the government" (which *MIGHT* be reasonably accurate if you'd said "a third of your net earnings after your army of accountants have protected as much of your EBIT as you can get away with... a MUCH smaller number than their "corporate income.)
If they'd run their business better, they wouldn't have needed a handout from Uncle Sammy, and the government wouldn't have had any say in the internal operation of their business. In other words, if GM management had been worth a tinker's damn as capitalists, they wouldn't be in this mess.
Matt 3:05AM (4/23/2009)
Jake,
I don't recall anybody specifically telling GM they had to do anything in terms of selling brands, even if "getting rid of toxic assests" was strongly suggested. Nobody said "sell GMC or you're on your own," and nobody also said that GM was being forced to work with the over-priced UAW.
On the contrary, the Obama Administration has been a huge fan of re-working the way UAW works with the Big Three, as well as looking down upon the pay structure the UAW has in place, pressuring them to lower costs by lowering wages.
And I'm not sure what the idea of "Obama is trying to force GM to make a bunch of Aveos and sell them for a low profit margin" is about, but I hardly support that. The sole issue of the US government is the inability to recognize previous restructuring, and the fact that GM's ideals and previous actions are going to right the ship, it will just take more time than they curretly have without extra financing and/or Bankruptcy... they sit around and say GM "isn't making progress."
I'm sorry, but lots of people who want to make a purchase can't, and even more are afraid to consider it given the economy, so don't tell me that GM doesn't make cars people want to buy. The G8/Camaro are arguably the best bang for the buck in their respective fields, as is the Malibu. The Astra is a great car, and (arguably) only Ford is better in the truck department than the Sierra/Silverado. The only thing GM is really lacking is a stellar small car, and even that is arguable.
I'd purchase a(n admittedly not very attractive) new Focus before I'd buy a G5/Cobalt, but they're not horrible cars. And before you try arguing interior materials quality, please sit in a Corolla or Civic and tell me there's a HUGE difference in the "quality" of the hard plastic between the respective cars - there isn't. The small car market is lacking "really nice cars" with possible exceptions being the Astra and Jetta, along with the Mini, if you can pit a car that starts at $20,000+ as a "small car" without adding "luxury" or "higher end" to the statement. Those two (Astra/Jetta) are the only two I can think of that use a decent amount of soft-touch and nicer styling cues (largely subjective, obviously) in them than the plan grey interior of a Cobalt/Civic. But hey, at least the Civic gives you that sweet SPACESHIP wedge/dash look thing, if you're into that?
I digress. The point is, the Big Three make some nice cars, but public perception and the lack of financing/fear of the market is making people not buy cars. Everybody's SOL right now, not just GM. Give it a couple years ;) And honestly, why wasn't Saturn restructed into a brand that only carries fuel efficient diesel/small cars from Europe (Opel, etc) years ago? Then maybe they'd be worth keeping around...
TigerMil 6:21PM (4/22/2009)
I'm shocked, Rick. Shocked.
Reply
paul34 6:23PM (4/22/2009)
Capitalism, or even the shadow of it we had previous to all the bailouts and stimulus packages, does work. If we let it take its course, these companies would have been forced into the C11 which seems inevitable at this point.
So, now, we lose billions, but still end up with bankrupt companies anyway. The alternative was ending up bankrupt companies, but holding on to those billions (that didn't even exist to begin with).
What you all need to do is stop with the labeling. The Bush administration did it, and the current administration (and Congress) took the theme, went the completely wrong way, and made it significantly worse.
Maybe some of you only watched the MSNBC coverage of the tea parties. However, you'd see there's widespread recognition of this fact. Republicans, Democrats, Obama voters, black people, white people; everyone participated in these protests which were about the general state of the financial situation of the federal government; not just about raising taxes as the MSM would like you to believe. They're just terrified that the other side figured out how to speak up and use the internet now.
Reply
jake 4:04AM (4/23/2009)
What I don't get is how come none of these people came out last year? Why the big push for tea parties this year?
A poll is probably a more accurate way to judge public reaction.
I'm doubtful those tea parties are not mostly a partisan response.
paul34 10:53AM (4/23/2009)
Jake,
Many were dissatisfied with the fiscal policies of the later parts of the past eight years. The Democrats were in for the last 2 of the 8, but that didn't change anything. So people expected "change" from the new administration and congress, but instead, they got nothing of the sort and instead, seem to now be screwed beyond anything that will be fixed for a long time, the economy included.
People were somewhat expecting it to change - but now that hope is gone. That's why you see them out there now. If McCain was there, quite frankly, I'm not sure he'd do too much differently. And the tea parties would still take place.
Have you been to one of these events? You seem pretty sure about the tea parties, even though you're purely speculating about them. Talk to the majority of the people who go, and you'll clearly see its not partisan, its not sponsored by Fox, and its not racial whatsoever. The MSM wants you to believe that, but its not true.
I know you WANT to believe the things you are saying - its easier to dismiss criticism by marginalizing and insulting the people making it (ad hominem logical fallcy), rather than taking on their logical arguments. And the mass majority ARE making logical arguments, not emotional ones or otherwise irrational statements.
Maybe this may help - this is just a small part, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q
the_MVP_X 6:24PM (4/22/2009)
I'm with Bill Ford, Obama (not surprising) broke the rules of capitalism. And EU_reader, watch ur euro communism.
Reply
paul34 6:33PM (4/22/2009)
What's sad is that it wasn't even a genuine gesture, if there is such a thing. He broke the rules for really, no good reason. Sure, you can say that the huge governmental stake changes things, but that's a whole other, scary issue in an of itself.
At any rate, the fact is that it didn't and won't change anything at GM, because you still have the same set of people. And with the salary cap, any truly talented, new management is never going to set foot on the sinking ship that is GM; they'll go to some other company where their talents are appreciated and compensated.
EU_reader 6:56PM (4/22/2009)
Oh really, throwing around another -ism, are we? That's the only way you people know to make an argument. Proving my point?
Do you really think that's impressive in some godfearing hillbilly way? Considering the type of argument you make, i'd say you're even too dumb to really understand what communism or socialism is, let alone fascism. Cause that's the next best thing you'd want to throw at me next, right? In case communism wears out a bit for using it the way rightwingers do. And what's next after fascim, you might want to think about that.
See? That's your problem. By using these terms for namecalling people you don't agree with, in a childish immature fashion, not even understanding what it means, you overuse the therm and make it a hallow accusation. Making it just laughable for everyone who made it out of highschool. If that's the way you righties want to appeal to your constituance, you've got a long way to go. But hey, since US education has been ignored for years, you might even get away with it.
If you'd have half a braincell, you'd know that there are only five communist nations left in the world: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam
It may sadden you deeply, but none of them are European. "Heck allmighty... ! " What now?
DKB_SATX 6:59PM (4/22/2009)
Be clear. The rule of capitalism that the government (say Obama if you want to personalize it) was that they should just have allowed GM to fail instead of bailing them out. If you think that it was a bad idea to invest in GM at all, fine... but once they are providing the gold, the feds can make the rules.
paul34 7:12PM (4/22/2009)
"Oh really, throwing around another -ism, are we? That's the only way you people know to make an argument. Proving my point?"
Oh eu_reader... your post is dripping with irony. Do you need a paper towel?
Let's count it:
1) "godfearing hillbilly way"
*Unjustified insult of religious people and whatever "hillbilly" refers to. Do you also believe all of us in the US own ranches, hang out in swing-door saloons, and ride horses to work?
2) "By using these terms for namecalling people you don't agree with, in a childish immature fashion, not even understanding what it means, you overuse the therm and make it a hallow accusation."
*incredible irony.
3) "If that's the way you righties"
*Nice, another one!
4) "If you'd have half a braincell, you'd know that there are only five communist nations left in the world: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam"
* That depends on one's definition of Communism, now does it? Anyone with "half a braincell" would know that there are no true Communist countries around the world. What many of us call "Communism" isn't theoretical communism, but the implementation thereof. What many of you guys call "capitalism" isn't capitalism at all, but rather corruption.
No offense, euro reader, but you may want to educate yourself a bit more before you lash out at the US.
EU_reader 8:16PM (4/22/2009)
@DKB_SATX
Agreed, GM should have failed, as should most of the banks. This would clear out the playing field and we could start over. That's the theory, which I support.
However!! It's not that simple. In both cases there's ethics involved. A lot of human capital is (with GM) depending on jobs to have a worthy existence. I don't know, do you want to take that chance? Do you want to impose that much misery and unimployement on the low tech workforce because of incompetent management that screwed up?
Same with banks. Exercising theoretical capitalist rules is an option. The banks would have failed but society would have suffered tremendously. Millions of people would have lost everything due to the greed of only a handful of people. I don't think that's correct. That's not a price you want to pay for true capitalism. Specially because normal citizens don't have a clue about how the financial 'geniusses' gamble with their money for short term profits, thus creating bubbles and toxic products. It's higly immoral, and I don't see how anyone can oppose more strict regulations in the financial industry. It benefits 99.9% of the people, except the 0.1% at the top. Regardless, the people at the top succeed in spinning the story so that the base goes to the street, protesting something they don't fully understand or will even benefit from. Same with the teabaggers... It's not their taxes they're going to raise, but still they're on the street protesting the tax raises on the people that got them in their difficult position in the first place. I've got to say, kudos to the corporate level, it's machiavellian...
@paul34
Are we getting somewhere here? By admitting that communist nations do not fully implement theoretical communism, (but make it work in a more practical way), maybe there's also some room here to admit that full-on theoretical capitalism doesn't work either? For the simple reason that at the base you're playing with human capital, which introduces ethics into the equation, and therefore inevitably regulation to some degree. If management and corporations can't act ethically and morally by themselves, they need to be forced to do so.
You don't want to inflict misery on your society for short term commercial gain for management and to test out your theoretical capitalism to the limit. It's not a game!! It's gambling with your and my excistance.
Off course, true capitalism WORKS! But it starts with the premise of intelligent participators and with a goal of long term durable sustainability. In that sense there's capitalist value in moral behaviour. But people have a tendency to be short term oriented.
If we can't trust corporations to act intelligently with the capitalistic freedoms they are given, then we need to regulate. They brought it upon themselves. If your child abuses the freedom his given to joyride, you will ground him nonetheless. And to come to the point of the matter: if regulations include firing an overly incompetent CEO, so be it. Specially if the government has a financial stake in that corporation.
And that's got nothing to do with socialism, not a bit.
EU_reader 8:20PM (4/22/2009)
@paul34
Are we getting somewhere here? By admitting that communist nations do not fully implement theoretical communism, (but make it work in a more practical way), maybe there's also some room here to admit that full-on theoretical capitalism doesn't work either? For the simple reason that at the base you're playing with human capital, which introduces ethics into the equation, and therefore inevitably regulation to some degree. If management and corporations can't act ethically and morally by themselves, they need to be forced to do so.
You don't want to inflict misery on your society for short term commercial gain for management and to test out your theoretical capitalism to the limit. It's not a game!! It's gambling with your and my excistance.
Off course, true capitalism WORKS! But it starts with the premise of intelligent participators and with a goal of long term durable sustainability. In that sense there's capitalist value in moral behaviour. But people have a tendency to be short term oriented.
If we can't trust corporations to act intelligently with the capitalistic freedoms they are given, then we need to regulate. They brought it upon themselves. If your child abuses the freedom his given to joyride, you will ground him nonetheless. And to come to the point of the matter: if regulations include firing an overly incompetent CEO, so be it. Specially if the government has a financial stake in that corporation.
And that's got nothing to do with socialism, not a bit.