Many of those companies have manufacturing plants in the United States. The "Big Three" is a dinosaur. Which brands so you have a particular problem with?Sure, but a lot of the jobs lost in the U.S. would be jobs gained in Japan, S. Korea, and Germany. Not sure how I can make that any clearer....
And all this time GM was without a board of directors? This is going to be an attractive precedent for future presidents.. If a company is not making money the Commander in Chief can just take t over and fire the boss. I can see circumstances where companies can merge, milk it dry, threaten to fail, and expect government funds. Why not?
He fired Wagoner because the turnaround expert he brought in to study the company determined that Wagoner was detrimental to the turnaround. That expert was Steve Rattner, formerly of the Quadrangle Group -- a private equity firm Rattner helped grow from $1 billion in capital to $6 billion in capital over a period of eight years. When Rattner left they brought in Ed Whitacre, the former CEO of AT&T. As far as giving Wagoner a chance, he was CEO of GM for eight years, during which time the company lost $85 billion. I think that's enough time to draw conclusions.
Is that what the government is telling you?I guess the results speak for themselves. Even in the down economy GM is more profitable now than it's been in many years.
If I were President they wouldn't receive a penny. It was a mistake for Reagan to bail out Chrysler then and a mistake to bail them or GM out later.In any case, Obama didn't force this on GM & Chrysler. They came to him because they had no other options. If you come to the government on bended knee begging them to save your ass I think it's fair to expect that the government may impose some conditions, don't you?