"...do you think the Federal Government will be [perceived as] meddling in
GM's operations, and if so will that make (A) or (B) more likely?"

 

Yes, I think that the Federal Government will be perceived as meddling, even
if they are very light handed.  I don't think the perception of meddling is
the big problem; rather, it is actual meddling.  For example, the
government's attempt to shove high mileage cars at consumers may backfire if
gas prices stay low.  If this scenario develops, in part, because the
government dictates the "fundamental" type of cars GM can makes, then
government meddling helped sink GM, and scenario (B) is realized.

 

I think that Obama believes what he says about meddling, "in all but the
most fundamental corporate decisions".  But I think that undue pushing of a
global warming and fuel economy agenda is likely.  Therefore, I think that
my guess of the outcome favors (B).

 

You never know though, confidence in GM because it is backed by the
government may boost sales, and if gas prices zoom again the government
agenda might actually help GM sell cars.  I don't think that the government
is going to try to meddle in day-to-day management.  So this scenario
supports (A).

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dr. Ernie
Prabhakar
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 8:15 PM
To: Radical Centrist discussion list
Subject: Re: [RC] Predictions? "The End of an Old GM,and the Beginning of a
New GM"

 

Hi Chris,

 

On Jun 1, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Chris Hahn wrote:

Now, with a lessening of "legacy" union and retirement entitlements, GM has
a better chance at being successful.  I am no automotive business expert so
I will answer the challenge in two ways.

Okay, but that dodges the political question: do you think the Federal
Government will be [perceived as] meddling in GM's operations, and if so
will that make (A) or (B) more likely? :-)

 

-- Ernie P.

 





 

A.  Management at "new company" makes cars that customers want to buy at a
price that is competitive.  Then, in 5 years the American People's stock
will be worth something and half of it will have been sold for a profit,
enriching the Treasury.  In 10 years all of the American People's stock will
have been sold for a considerable profit to the American People.

 

B.  Management can't create competitive cars.  Then, in 5 years we, the
American People, will have lost our investment and GM will be liquidated in
Chapter 7.  At a certain point I think the Obama administration will let GM
fail.  10 years is a moot point.

 

Chris

 

 

  _____  

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dr. Ernie
Prabhakar
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 1:22 PM
To: Radical Centrist Discussions
Subject: [RC] Predictions? "The End of an Old GM, and the Beginning of a New
GM"

 

Okay, time to put your money where your mouth is. What is your prediction
for what the relationship between GM and the Federal Government will be like
in 5 years? 10 years?

 

-- Ernie P.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-End-of-an-Old-GM-and-the-Beginning-of-a-N
ew-GM/

 

 That's why our government will be making a significant additional
investment of about $30 billion in GM -- an investment that will entitle
American taxpayers to ownership of about 60 percent of the new GM.

Now, let me talk about this.  I recognize that this may give some Americans
pause.  So let me explain as clearly as possible why we are making this
investment.  We inherited a financial crisis unlike any that we've seen in
our time.  This crisis crippled private capital markets and forced us to
take steps in our financial system -- and with our auto companies -- that we
would not have otherwise even considered.  These steps have put our
government in the unwelcome position of owning large stakes in private
companies for the simple and compelling reason that their survival and the
success of our overall economy depend on it.

Understand we're making these investments not because I want to spend the
American people's tax dollars, but because I want to protect them.  Instead
of taking so much stock in GM, we could have simply offered the company more
loans.  But for years, GM has been buried under an unsustainable mountain of
debt.  And piling an irresponsibly large debt on top of the new GM would
mean simply repeating the mistakes of the past.  So we are acting as
reluctant shareholders -- because that is the only way to help GM succeed.

What we are not doing -- what I have no interest in doing -- is running GM.
GM will be run by a private board of directors and management team with a
track record in American manufacturing that reflects a commitment to
innovation and quality.  They -- and not the government -- will call the
shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around.  The
federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder
in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions.  When a difficult
decision has to be made on matters like where to open a new plant or what
type of new car to make, the new GM, not the United States government, will
make that decision.

In short, our goal is to get GM back on its feet, take a hands-off approach,
and get out quickly.

 

_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at
http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/

 

_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/

Reply via email to