Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIf We Only Had a Leader with Guts: What a State-Run GM Could Do
If the government were to actually take charge of GM, instead of playing the pathetic role of passive owner, the bankrupt and seriously troubled auto giant could move beyond just making more cars and more problems to become a forward-thinking pioneer in acrually solving problems.
Instead of just cranking out more and more steel dinosaurs and contributing more to the greenhouse gas crisis and the country's reliance on imported oil, a state-owned GM could start making and selling a line of electric vehicles, maybe marketing them as a package deal to car-buyers together with installed solar panels or wind generators, so that each car buyer would have his or her own source of off-the-grid electric power.
By selling solar and wind units in the millions, GM could bring down the cost of personal power generation to reasonable levels, making a huge dent in the nation's carbon footprint.
GM, by becoming a major alternative power producer, would also have a whole new source of revenue and domestic jobs, as well. It might even become an exporter again.
A state-owned and run GM could also become a major promoter and producer of mass transit alternatives, from subways and high-speed rail systems to computerized street-level light rail and people mover systems, further protecting the future jobs of GM workers.
Instead of shutting down "surplus" car plants and letting these huge investments in industrial infrastructure decay and collapse, or be razed, these huge facilities (nine to 12 are slated for shutdown at this point) could be geared up for alternative uses, saving jobs and whole regional economies.
These are the kinds of things no quarter-to-quarter-obsessed managerial team slathering for that next annual executive bonus check would ever consider, but they are certainly directions a state-run GM could go.
If, that is, leaders in Congress and the White House could somehow be deprogrammed out of their blind faith in the mumbo-jumbo cult of America's state religion of "Free Enterprisism."
53 Comments so far
Show AllI HATE OBAMA, i hate democrats, i hate republicans, i hate Ron Paul, i hate libertarians. I only love socialists and communists
there is a problem in the Ron Paul free-market libertarian movement. They blame all the problems of USA into the Federal Reserve (That's their bogey-man), but they never talk about the private-ownership of the means of production (private businesses) as being guilty for US problems. So in a Ron Paul government the Federal Reserve would be nationalized, but empires wealth like Wal Mart, Exxon, Shell would be unregulated
I couldn't vote for Nader in the last election because he wasn't on the ballet here in Tennessee. Somewhere I read that a man cannot serve 2 masters. It's clear now who and what Obama serves. The Obamatrons, the Republican hillbillies serve the capitalist masters !! Only socialist-candidates and socialist parties could serve the people first, second, third and fourth !!
.
I couldn't vote for Nader in the last election because he wasn't on the ballet here in NC. Somewhere I read that a man cannot serve 2 masters. It's clear now who and what Obama serves.
Scuuuuse me. Owebama isn't here for this. This isn't his job. His job is to rape you and your children to death for his Master, as in "Yes, My Master." Mr. Smiley-Face is here to MURDER the last of your middle class jobs and push your face into squalor and degradation. He thinks less of you than the slab of hamburger on the sandwich he is about to eat. Kill the $$, Empty the Treasury into the hands of the 1%, Kill SSI & Medicare - take you back to the 12th century feudalism that white america DEMANDED 40 years ago when they DEMANDED a society based on Exclusion; Male Supremacy, Gender Slavery, Constant War AND Torture...screaming nightmare torture that grows white males a chubby...It was their choice back then, I was there -- they could have ended poverty forever in this country and built lifetime stable employment OR they could have white male supremacy, gender slavery, and constant war. They chose. You know what they chose. You know what they choose to this day...they chose DEATH and now you and your chidren and your grandchildren have it. That is why mommies and daddies, after they are thrown under the bus in your lovely society based on Exclusion, shoot their small children in the back of the head before shooting themselves - because they know that murdering their children is a MERCY compared to what America would do to them...worse things than being dead...
We need people out there in the trenches connecting GM workers up with political activists to put together a united front to push for high speed rail, light rail, street car and subway. We need a bill passed that will protect the new infrastructure for decades. Get to work, people!
Amen, brother!
Dave, well, we don't have a leader with guts. We have Obama.
Alex Catgirl, I don't think there are any progressive stands left for Obama to turn his back on. He's pretty much abandoned them all. But hey, he's doubled the number of mercenary soldiers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I read that we now have more mercenaries than military there now. And he's tapping countries all over the world. Next, we will be reading that he's using child soldiers. Why not, he doesn't have any problem blowing up women and children.
And to think I actually voted for him. That will teach me. I go all these decades refusing to vote for a Democrat and then I pick him. When I blow it I blow it big.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Owebama is actually doing us a favor by violatig every single vaguely progressive campaign promise within the first 150 days...
He is saying... " you now have three years and five months to get organized with a third party... Because I tried the Hope & change schtick within the two party system, I tried bipartisanship, I tried to reform a currupt beltway, and in the end, I became one of them..."
Obama didn't try shit--he scorns progressives and lectures the voters. He only extends bipartisan to the Right. It wasn't in the end that he became one of them, he always was. He is a servant and it isn't us who he serves.
Interesting and even humorous. If you read Edwin Black's book, "Internal Combustion" you would find out that GM entered into a criminal conspiracy a long time ago to do away with electric vehicles including light rail all across the country. At one point in our history it was possible almost to go from one end of the country to another on electric trolleys and such. In the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car" we see that GM had built an electric car that could have cornered the market. There were vigils and demonstrations by folks trying to save the car but GM demolished every one of them even though every person who ever drove one loved it. Too bad, wouldn't you say?
DAve Lindorff: Beware, there are lots of neoliberal-capitalists in this website. You know that lots of Democrats and Obamatrons are hardcore deffenders of libertarian, free-market impossed by force on USA on 1776. They think that because the US founding fathers were fascists and capitalists, we have to be capitalists as well. What USA needs is not the US Founders Ideology like Ron Paul religiously claims and he is very wrong. What USA and the world needs is a socialization of the economy. Only socialism, socializing the means of production under state-control of the largest mega corporations like G.M. can put USA back on track. More capitalism (I.E: Selling GM to capitalists egocentric individuals) will only lead us straight to hell. Only what Chavez is doing can save USA.
.
Dave Lindorff: Stop wasting your precious energies on Obama, on The Democrat Party and on the US government. USA is ruled by morons, by evil people and by capitalists. Capitalists are crazy psychopaths, power-hungry maniacs, that's why they have the crazy idea of keeping GM privately owned even if they know that privately owned GM will not work. USA is doommed.
.
The government couldn't run its own AMTRAK corporation well and has in fact used it to privatize public transportation. Why should we pay our tax dollars towards a government run GM? Why not allow small businesses their own say and growth?
Maxpayne: you are a neoliberal. Are you crazy? Neoliberalism is the same economic model that destroyed Argentina. Privately owned industries destroy countries. Only state-owned corporations can save countries.
.
I didn't say rig the game and privatize. I said let small businesses compete and grow. If a business grows but fails later, don't bother bailing it out. Let nature take care of it. I'm not a neoliberal by any means even if there are a few good points of it. Here's what I read of neoliberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
That system is no doubt prone to abuse and distortion which is why I don't agree with it for the most part. There's checked capitalism and then there's unchecked capitalism. I endorse the former while neoliberalism endorses the latter. I know I sound a bit wishy washy on this but I'll try to make it clearer down the road.
hahaha, the so called "Checked capitalism" with "Checks and balances" is bullshit. Only the path toward socialism of the XXI Century like being applied in Venezuela can save America. Capitalism even with "Checks and balances" is still capitalism and can still lead us toward hell.
Get used to it. Capitalism just sucks !!
This is a pretty simplistic analysis of AMTRAK.
Here's the problem right here:
"...state-owned and run..."
The "state" is another $3.8 billion in debt every day; every dept. and agency is rife with fraud and corruption; and the vast majority of 'our' reps are on the take from Big Whatever.
No, the last thing we want is the "state" running anything that is supposed to be profitable.
And - if "Frankly, they (the banksters) own the place (AKA, the 'state,')" aren't the real owners of GM now the banksters?
"Supposed to be profitable" may be a bigger problem.
Nicely written piece. I confess my vote for Obama was misplaced.
Politicians rarely think creatively. Had the opportunity been taken, GM might be restructured not on behalf of its finances but toward morphing it into a Green Auto Company. The first of its kind, by slashing the old brands, and retooling the industry for energy efficiency: is it asking too much to think visionary thoughts these days?
Let the boat sink...
Let the wagon train go off the cliff...
Let the intrinsicly flawed business model go bankrupt...
Let the cancer riddled quadriplegic on life support have death with dignity...
Great suggestion. I'd say the "gov't corruption" featured in the comments above shows in paying out to GM without insisting on public service in return.
It's not like GM will forgive the debt on citizen's cars now, is it? "Oh, you pay taxes? We already have your money!"
It's not like they will not continue to draw owner's pay soon enough. How long have these people told their employees "We get the big bucks because we invest: we take the risks."
Now, when there's a loss, the employees lose more than the owners.
They claimed they couldn't retool factories to make higher mileage cars wa-ay back in '73.
I'd accept letting GM sink. I'd prefer to see it nationalized. The government could make good on those pensions with a lot less $$ than they've been throwing at management in bailouts. Fewer foreclosures up in Michigan might do the economy better than a few Wall Street macroparasites hanging on to billions until the crash hits bottom, then speeding inflation by buying underpriced or endangered assets.
Obama wasn't the problem in this particular case, it was the congress. Representatives and Senators who would of liked to have save GM/Chrysler as they were their base couldn't as they found themselves at odds with the Southern states who have foreign plants competing against the domestic automotive industry....and CA which wants a chance at creating smaller green start up industries employing their people and paying their CEO and managers the boo-koo bucks.
Look at the firestorm the dealership closures are kicking up - wa wa wa why do our dealerships get shut down and not theirs! Why Why Why? It's politics! Dems get to keep their dealerships.
We are a very divided country, Canada put up money too to save their auto-industry/plants/jobs, wasn't much of a debate. The German and Japanese governments proped up their auto-industries as well, again without much debate.
Sure their are ideological differences as well, but that's not the main driver.
Of course Obama doesn't want to be CEO of GM,neither would anyone else looking to stay sane. Look at the divisions here, some want to turn it into a green housing company as well, others like trains(me too), someone else gave an example of how a similar project failed....others just hate corporation, and there are only 16 comments!
I would like Obama to take a solid, progressive stand on *something*, providing leadership and using the bully pulpit,and telling neigh sayers to fuck off, but I'm really sure this is not the right issue
"Look at the divisions here, some want to turn it into a green housing company as well, others like trains(me too), someone else gave an example of how a similar project failed....others just hate corporation, and there are only 16 comments!"
All are good ideas and they should all be taken into serious consideration and tried out in parallel and see what the public chooses in the end. Here's another idea. Let's actually allow for competition, something GM just couldn't tolerate but is now sorely needed.
It's not guts, Dave Lindorff, it's ideology.
Dem and Repug leaders come from the two wings of the business party. Yes, they're supposed to serve the public, but they're funded by corporations. It's an inherent conflict of interest and fatal flaw of the so-called republic.
If you think good ideas will get in the way of this agenda, you've not been paying attention. You're still riding off that old FDR campaign meme, maybe. A government-funded public works project is needed, but your candidate, Obama, already ruled that out. Instead, Obama's followed Herbert Hoover's approach and just handed out the cash to banksters. The auto industry is being starved to kill off the last remnants of labor unions.
That's your Dem Party for ya, 2009 style.
-TIA
TIA: haven't you heard? We don't "do" ideology any more, everything is about pragmatism, what you have to do to survive today: and I mean everything up to and including selection of the next Justice of the Supreme Court. I agree that ideologically Republicans and Democrats are indistinguishable one from another (Lindorff himself says that at the close of his essay), and any solution to our problems has to be sold as something that will "work." But haven't we just had a huge experience of failure to "work" of the ideology of free enterprise-ism? So what will work? I think Lindorff in the end may be right that "guts" are important here: the courage to do what will work (government ownership of auto industry) even though it flies in the face of the mainstream ideology. Will Barack Obama be able to furnish this profile in courage? I don't know, I wouldn't assume he would just because it's so desperately needed, but I'm certainly willing to go along with the Obama apologists and say "give the guy a chance." (and make him pay the political price if he flubs it).
Well, I'm still disagreeing with your point, Jerry. I think Obama has plenty of guts. It takes an extraordinary amount of courage - I'd call it gall - to take $800 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars and simply hand it to Wall Street, no strings attached.
So, it really isn't about guts or courage. Obama's continued the wars. Wow, it takes a lot to defy your political base and do something like that.
Obama has courage, but it just goes one way - toward corporate welfare. That's what I mean by ideology. We don't need that - bailouts for private industry. We need a government that will create useful jobs to help people as the market cuts its losses. And that's the old FDR pattern, which Obama isn't following.
-TIA
btw. there is a similar argument to the above post being made yesterday worth reading.
Published on Friday, June 5, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
We Don't Need the General Motors Corp.
by Mike Ferner
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/05-8
I suggest an alternative of modest reform. Let GM do what it wants but enact measures that will change the playing field. Such a reform would do more than set milage standards. It would set fuel prices at a point where hybrids make economic sense and give bigger incentives to purchase plugin hybrids and electric cars to jump start these initiatives. It might pass domestic content legislation or set import tariffs high enough that it would not pay to produce outside this country. It could enact Single Payer health care and remove that burden from industry books. It could encourage Employee free choice so that all workers in an industry were able to bargain as union employees and repeal Taft Hartley so that bargaining could proceed collectively by industry segment. This would be the Roosevelt approach of restricting the corporate greed of capitalims to save it from itself. Much less ambitious than Lindoff's agenda. But even this is beyond the means of our present corrupt political system. Get ready for the firestorm.
I like your idea of making fuel more expensive. But I think it is a non starter. seeing a revolt against petrol prices in England convinces me that you will have more success in talking a heroin addict out of taking heroin. Getting people unhooked from their car addiction has to be done carefully.
Basically, about 9 years ago, one person blocked the road as his revolt against high petrol prices. There wasn't even any organization. People spontaneously jumped on board, and roads in and out of London were stopped. The government was left with a public revolt which was in essence, similar to the one that the Chinese government faced in Tienanmen Square 17 years earlier. Unlike the Deng Zhou Ping, Tony Blair backed down real fast, and petrol taxes were lowered. This is England, not China, and Tony Blair could not simply order the problem sorted out militarily.
Which does highlight the difference between the Iraq war, which people in Britain disagreed with, and high petrol prices. Government taxes affected the people directly, and they acted in a very effective manner. The protests about the Iraq war brought London to a halt for a day, but then it was back to business the next day. It shows people do care about atrocities to people far away, and perhaps they care about the environment too, but they care a whole lot more about immediate inconveniences to themselves.
USans took a 100% to 300% price gouge from the petro-profiteers during Darth Viper's bonanza, didn't they? We hardly heard a peep from them. So imagine them taking a similar gouging but to fill the public treasury instead of the profiteer's bank account. Will they have the "audacity" to explain why they prefer to give to the profiteer? No.
I would like to impress upon people the previous attempts by the federal government to create a light rail system and the creation of the standard light rail vehicle.
1973: Boeing was given the task, earning $300Million per car, taking up to 1979 to have a fully functional train presented to public metros. They were faulty products with high failure rates., ...Massachusetts Bay Transit Auth. had to sue Boeing for rebuilt cars, which took until 1983.
Boeing eventually closed their Boeing LRV shop, stopped making trains. Government programs around this time, such as the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA [FTA today]), which funded Boeing, were also considered a way to give contracts to military contractors who would be winding down orders once the Vietnam War stopping...transitional phase of sorts...
I really think people need to look to the failures of past attempts at creating Light Rail before taking off to drum up support for public programs ultimately dependent on failed companies and failed leadership. I still think the variable are too high to risk such a large sum of money.
If we want mass transit and if we want light rail, then make that our focus. Building a future "company" to build a "future" rail car system by a future government doesn't make sense when there is Bombardier Rail Cars production already successfully being made and sold around the world.
Shovel ready v pipe dream.
here's a link on the UMTA's attempt at creating Light Rail Vehicles, plus Boeing LRV for anyone interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Light_Rail_Vehicle
Hence the need for the public boot on the contractor's neck as discussed in a previous post. It's a revolutionary idea of course, not the same as a reformist idea. Once the people learn about power/responsibility, many new doors open. And they ought to open. We're working four times as much as we should for what we're getting in return, on average. The elites are squandering the rest, turning it into war machines, freeways that we don't need, and giving lots away to their suppliers overseas, the Saudis, Japanese, Germans, Chinese, etc. The huge prosperity over THERE was harvested from the backs of USans. THE PEOPLE should control production AND set prices.
Dave Lindorff is quite correct in saying that…
“If the government were to actually take charge of GM, instead of playing the pathetic role of passive owner, the bankrupt and seriously troubled auto giant could move beyond just making more cars and more problems to become a forward-thinking pioneer in acrually solving problems.”
But that can’t occur in a society that pays daily hommage to the mainstream media that manufactures support for anything corporate. The supposed triumphs of the latest mega billion dollar merger, bailout or hostile takeover dominate our written and spoken news stories to create the illusion that these things matter the most to the public while avoiding serious debates about the fundamental changes our society requires to survive the rest of this century.
How many times have we heard the corporate CEO’s as well as union leaders claim that “we make great cars, that’s not the problem” when in reality every car out there is proof of the failure of our industry and public to adapt to our environment. Yet an ignorant public is corporate America’s biggest asset and by controlling our sources of ‘current and reliable information’ the public can’t possibly be expected to reject our current crop of corporate selected politicians.
Meanwhile innocent Americans sign up for our armed forces everyday under the false impression that they will “fight to protect America” when in fact our soldiers are nothing more than sacrificial lambs in the quest to dominate a handful of resources around the globe. Nothing could be more ‘anti-American’ than being a soldier of Exxon or Chevron, yet the false label of “the War on Terror” is immediately applied to any military intervention to mask the true agenda of a disfunctional corporate state. War in general could easily be avoided if Americans were able to harness our energies to adapt to alternative energies rather than adapting to the whims of Wall Street. The military industrial complex should be replaced with a “social industrial complex” that focuses on development, construction and the implementation of new and progressive paths for industry and individuals rather than exerting so much effort in the production of weapons of mass destruction in the name of security. Real security would be the ability of Americans to live in clean environment, free of monthly utility bills, free from the insecurity of having no health insurance & free from a world of perpetual debt. With our current cabal of “company men” on the Hill though, I don’t see much hope for the immediate future.
You're a dreamer, Dave, and so am I. Just imagine a high-speed rail network from New York to LA with spurs to every major city, a north south route from NYC to Miami, a north south route from Seattle to San Diego. It would cost hundreds of billions and provide millions of jobs and leave us with a thoroughly modern transportation infrastructure. It could be done for the cost of ONE Iraq war, or ONE Afghanistan war, or ONE civil war in Pakistan, or ONE of our NEXT WARS undoubtedly in the planning stages. But NO. That is not how it works in FREE MARKET ameriKa.
Nice dream, high speed rail. But it won't cost hundreds of billions. With the public boot on the contractor's neck, it will only cost tens of billions. Think about it. You've heard of medical tourism, where USans save thousands by flying overseas for surgery? Explore the paths of possibility. There are more opportunities than you might have thought!! By the way, if you look at the construction cost of public transport in Japan/Europe compared to the cost of free market items such as real estate there, you'll find public transport costs were somehow mysteriously lowered, by some "invisible hand". This phenomenon won't be discussed in the US media. But what if?
Wow, good post!! Lets dream.
The public option? There should be no 'options' but rather a single tier system that incorporates every citizen regardless of socio-economic standing. Anything less will result in the gross under funding of the "public option" with the usual blame placed on the fact that "it's the governments fault and government can't run things effectively". This is a standard pattern out of any corporate playbook whenever the public gains a foothold in running their own affairs.
Having said that, real universal healthcare coverage won't occur anytime soon due to the fact that too many politicians owe their elected positions to the support they received from Big Pharma & Insurance. The public must unite to jettison any potential politician who is a corporate stooge. What we need instead are politicians who will serve the public interest. For this to occur the public must be able to recognize a corporate sycophant when they see one (i.e. 95% of the current Congress and Administration) and logically come to the conclusion that what's best for Wall Street is generally counterproductive to the average Joe Shmoe.
Obama could theoretically take advantage of his popular support and over ride the tremendous pressure he's under by his corporate friendly Congress and departments, but I seriously doubt that he possesses that kind of courage. Right Wing ideologues from Geithner and Summers to Joe Biden and Baucus are far more representative of today's government than the likes of Kucinich, Nader and Conyers.
Well said Space Cadet. The game is "fixed" and only voting them out is the only way. Even Conyers is doing nothing to advance his own legislation whereas Baucus would aggressively advance his corporate sellout legislation.
A government run General Motors would be as corrupt, incompetent and inept as the privately owned one that recently drove over the cliff like Thelma and Louise. A government run General Motors would be the industrial equivalent of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, America, now you too can drive the all new for 2009 Cadillac Gitmo, the Buick Bagram and the Chevrolet Surge. Be the envy of every auto mechanic in your neighborhood as you have your GM car towed every five minutes to the garage only to be told they can't figure out why it won't run.
Tony Blair privatized British trains, with lots of "private enterprise is much more efficient" mantra. It did not work that way. Oh, it became more profitable, but the prices went up, and the safety and the punctuality went down. The net benefit to the public went down.
I learned at a very young age that arguing about religion was fruitless, but I wish we could deconstruct the American dogma. I realize that corporatism is virtually a religion in the USA, and it is hard push the idea that it is not the best solution in all instances to Americans. Its up there with "Freedom" and "Patriotism".
The goal is to do something environmentally sound, and remove the need for wars at the same time. Compressed air cars, for example create no pollution, and are efficient and very reliable. According the Program for the New American Century (PNAC) document, we needed to secure our oil supply militarily, hence the wars. The use of alternate energy sources will remove the need for these wars.
A government run enterprise can, in theory, put these goals before profit, where as a private one must put profit first. But if the government is only a corporate puppet, well.. then there is not much point in trying the first place.
I'm not sure why you find that so certain.
My mail arrives on time with little fanfare and only costs a stamp, and the IRS has several times sent me back tax money that I overpaid (OK, you-all think that never happens, but you're probably not fool enough to make the experiment).
I see no reason not to think the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan mostly because private corporations stood to profit. I can imagine that someone's profit motive might cause the federales to shoot themselves in the foot over GM, but it hardly seems reasonable to consider that inevitable without a scenario.
I don't mean to transfer all my frustration with unregenerate Ayn-Randism onto you, Mordechai, so please take the rest as broadcast.
A lot of people repeat the idea that any government is automatically "less efficient" than any private corporation, yet almost all accounts of "government inefficiency" prominently feature the actions of private corporations. In the case of $500 dollar screwdrivers, for instance, people cite government incompetence when they could as easily cite corporate greed.
It's a strange social code that calls the same action graft or corruption and inefficient when a government official does it, and profit when a private company does it.
"Come on down to our grand opening, it's 'Shock and Awe' weekend at your new GM dealership. We're slashing and burning the ticket price to rock bottom rubble. And there's plenty of handicap parking! So get on down and test drive the new Fallujah Revenge!"
Sioux Rose
REBEL: It's sickening that what you write could be viable ad copy. Well-earned cynicism now its own marinade vintage.
The author seems to be obsessed with the institution that is GM.
Rather than trying to "keep the brand alive" by transforming it into something it never was, why not let the car-producing leviathon die and allow others to buy up their factories.
This would allow companies with experience with other more environmentally sound products appropriate low-cost means of production.
Or - why not let former employees form cooperative corporations that produce the some of the type of products mentioned. Perhaps at a more local and human scale than world-wide corporate GM.
None of these are bad ideas, but they all have their own problems. Individual brands operating on their own have a tough time competing with national companies, like Honda or Toyota, which have national advertising, national dealership chains, etc. A single company, with a single model, built in a single factory, would have a tough time competing in that environment. Now if you broke up all the companies, it might be different--certainly more competitive.
The other problem is that individual worker coops, or a national GM worker co-op, would need enormous capital, and would probably have a difficult time obtaining it. The government would probably have to provide it.
These aren't insurmountable challenges, but politically, they would be tough, given the Congress we have, and the Democratic Party we have.
DAve Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net
"but they all have their own problems. Individual brands operating on their own have a tough time competing with national companies, like Honda or Toyota, which have national advertising, national dealership chains, etc. A single company, with a single model, built in a single factory, would have a tough time competing in that environment. Now if you broke up all the companies, it might be different--certainly more competitive."
Neither Toyota, nor Honda, is doing the things you propose in your article. Individual brands operating on their own would not be competing against Toyota, or Honda, unless they choose to try to reinflate GM's failed model.
I am not convinced that a small(er) entity cannot compete if it was actually delivering better products.
"I am not convinced that a small(er) entity cannot compete if it was actually delivering better products."
A smaller entity CAN compete by delivering better products. The foreign companies won't destroy it. They'll back off because they know they are playing a fool's game already, participating in the destruction of the USan society, and they may end up being named as scapegoats and get intercontinental ballistic missiles raining down on them when the next ultra-right monster gets into the oval orifice.
USans should demand at this time tariffs fully up, foreign companies out, and distribution of production to the local small farmers, craftsmen and merchants across the country. The people must be trained to demand local production. It has to be changed from a supply-driven to a demand-driven economy. It has to be in the people's hands. The elites are finished. We on the far-left predicted this. We're wondering what exactly the elite's electorate were thinking. Capitalist utopia?
Mr. Lindorff,
Apparently, you would have GM run by a Congress so woefully ignorant in energy matters that 99% of them are still unaware that "Peak Oil" can now only be observed by looking in the rear-view mirror.
The only Congressmen I know of who has understood this has been Roscoe Bartlett,who is a REPUBLICAN, and has been giving speeches about it to empty chambers for about 5 years.
We don't really NEED any more AUTOMOBILES in the US, we already have nearly 300 million of them. We need urban transport which is convenient yet high occupancy. Converting the basic SUVs design either to stretch Vans, or as a tractor that could pull a 20 seat trailer, making one stop per mile, might do the trick. It's too late for a lot of new light rail and we don't have the money.
As I mentioned in a comment to a related article about a week ago--GM can still produce engines which can be adapted to run on natural gas, and be used as a Combined-Heat-Power unit for buildings, instead of burning the NG only for heat.
Ultimately, the Rust Belt would be better off if it started installing Atmospheric Vortex Engines (Power Plants running on renewable CAPE) to provide cheap power on which it could run a revitalized manufacturing base. You could be the journalist to bring this to the attention of the administration and public--IMO it's the "Messiah" technology we've all been waiting for. May the AVE-force be with you.
While he makes much the same point, Robert Weissman gives a more compelling rationale for the government taking control of GM under the doctrine of eminent domain, that private property can be confiscated for a public interest. I recommend that it be read and perhaps commented upon along with Lindorff's article.
http://www.counterpunch.org/weissman06042009.html
It's a little late for eminent domain. The government already bought (at an absurdly inflated price!) 60 percent of GM.
But certainly they could have taken it by other means. Fact is, if they'd just bought the stock, which has been at about a dollar, they could have gotten the whole company for a third of the price of buying Starbucks--and for less than $5 billion.
Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net
Mr. Lindorff: I don't think yours and Mr. Wasserman's views are that much in disagreement. However the government acquires "ownership" of GM---by purchase of their stock or by eminent domain (which you correctly say may be "too late")---the principle is the same: that a government-owned car company should be managed in the interest of the public, for example, by avoiding layoffs, closing of car dealerships and out-sourcing of manufacturing capacity. This will require the will of the government to do this and as Wasserman says:
"The biggest problem is that the Obama administration explicitly disdains a desire to manage the company to advance the public interest. Even worse, the administration has stated its desire to begin selling off the government-held shares in GM in six to 18 months after the company emerges from bankruptcy; that posture puts a premium on measures to achieve short-term profitability … exactly the orientation that landed GM in its present predicament."
Where there is a will there may be a way, but some of that vaunted "pressure" will have to be put on the Obama administration to force these free-market fanatics from their intention to allow the free market to once again destroy the auto market.