Lobbyists
During the bankruptcy process last year, GM internalized its lobbying activities, or rather more specifically, they canned a significant portion their $10 million+ external lobby operation. It was unclear at the time if this was just part of the streamlining of the whole company, or simply a move to avoid a public black eye over a potential conflict.
Since then however, we have received news that GM has rehired the firms of Greenberg Traurig and the Duberstein Group, while also bringing onboard GrayLoeffler, and is continuing its relationship with the Washington Tax Group. Between these four noted firms, they have 18 lobbyists registered to represent GM.
The main job of these lobby groups is to win favors for GM in the form of tax breaks, special allowances and subsidies/grants over and above the $50-odd billion GM has already received.
Executive Reshuffle
The news on the external lobbying came to light at a time when GM itself was reshuffling its executive…again. This time in the form of its internal lobbying division. It would seem that Ed Whitacre’s message of a ‘calming of the storm’ at the executive level at GM after the ousting of then CEO Fritz Henderson, is not becoming a reality, as the purge continues.
Last week, GM announced the replacement of its head lobbyist/vice president of government relations, Ken Cole for two of Ed Whitacre’s poker playing buddies ex-employees at AT&T, namely John T. Montford, who is now senior advisor to the GM Chairman and CEO (of which, Mr. Whitacre seems to currently have a whole legion of ‘advisors’ at his disposal), and Robert E. Ferguson, who takes over the role of vice president of Government Relations.
On a personal note, I am all for a good shakeup. I met the news of the dismissal of Brent Dewar from the head of Chevrolet with a smile, and I confess to uttering a ‘huzzah’ or two when GM’s glorious disaster in charge of marketing that was Mark LaNeve left the building.
However, firing Ken Cole, who oversaw (and some say was the architect) of the whole ‘lets go to the government and get some ‘interm’ money, then go back again and get more ‘interm’ money, then tell them to look at all the money they foolishly gave us and get them to protect that money with more money…and then have them rinse us through bankruptcy, while telling them to forget all that ‘interm’ money they just gave us…and also throw us a whole bunch more ‘new’ money as we come out of bankruptcy so we are ‘viable’ for years to come’ plan seems like firing Michael Jordan off your team because you know a couple guys that used to play ball with you back in the day that were pretty good.
/just saying
CEO Rumor Du Jour
Not sure how this rumor got started (Okay, actually I do) but how it got picked up around the interwebs as legitimate is beyond me.
Basically, the story goes like this; GM wants to get a high profile, competent CEO installed at some point to not only lead the company into the future, but sell ‘the tar’ out of the upcoming (at some point) IPO. Enter current COO of Apple, Tim Cook. /tada, mission accomplished
Where it all breaks down is when you look at accountability…and reason. For starters, the source is some random ‘tipster’ that has indicated that he has a ‘inside’ source at a third party head hunter firm that says Cook is a top candidate for GM…and that he would be willing to leave Apple now that Steve Jobs is back running the show.
Beside the obvious ‘dubious’ source of a know a guy, who knows a guy. Why would Tim Cook leave his role as COO at Apple? He has been running the day to day operations there since Jobs when down with a rare form of pancreatic cancer in 2004, and even temporarily took over as the interm CEO roll while the rest of the world was under a ‘Steve Jobs/Apple Deathwatch.’ Needless to say, neither happened, and he led the company out from a multi-year low around $80 right back up to $140, well on its way to a all-time high this past December. At this point I am unsure that Tim Cook is not more Apple than Steve Jobs is.
And for his trouble keeping Jobs seat warm, Mr. Cook has gotten paid…and with a capital ‘P’. He has raked in tens of millions the last couple years, and just looking at his disclosures over his tenure, he has earned/sold over $100 million in Apple stock since his arrival. Not to mention he looks to have a lock on someday owning the ‘official’ CEO title. How long can/will Steve jobs really keep that seat filled?
Is GM willing to pay Cook $30 million a year, with a Nardelli-esque severance package? Would Cook even take that? Would Apple match any exorbitant price to keep him in house? Does Cook, who has only ever worked in the tech sector, even have the skill set to make a troubled automaker fly?
If somehow lightning did strike the Renaissance Center (like a dozen times) and Cook came onboard, GM certainly could boast having a who’s who of powerhouse executives, with Microsoft’s ex-CFO (Liddell), Apple’s ex-COO as CEO, and AT&T’s ex-chief Whitacre serving as President.
/but those three in the same room would surely cause the universe to implode.
This entry was posted on Sunday, January 3rd, 2010 at 8:57 am and is filed under Financial, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:09 am)Ex-Lax them away, the new guys cant be any worse than the old ones..
Carlos Goshn for CEO!
As much as we dislike lobbysts, GM has got to have them.
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:12 am)Sounds like a soap opera. At this point nothing would surprise me.
Nice article, statik.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:13 am)It’s time for statik to seize the controls.
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:15 am)I was going to suggest Lyle, but your idea is better. Lyle could be the lobbyist.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:35 am)Are not all these folks at that level somewhat dysfunctional?
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:46 am)How would we know?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+4
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:00 am)A classic Statik-esque post. Invoking images of prying screw drivers and smoking chainsaws.
Whomever ends up in charge at GM. Please continue the push toward the manufacture of several EREV models. Keep them simple, dependable, and affordable.
=D~
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:01 am)So the goal is money making harmony?
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:04 am)Thought it was a job requirement….
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:09 am)All admirable goals. “Fit and finish” needs to be “up there” too. GM has a long road ahead, so I hope the situation(s) with the leadership settles down soon.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:12 am)Let’s just say that they have to be “exceptional” (on a lot of levels).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:13 am)and a 10 year/100k miles bumper to bumper no questions asked warranty.. and cheap!!
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:14 am)How about they get someone thats not an oil company hack like Whitacre, we saw the damage that oil insiders can do as we had one for president.
+3
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:26 am)Well, whoever they appoint, they better be Peak Oil aware and continue Voltec development with Gusto!
2010, Year of the Volt
Has Plug? Have Sale
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:29 am)There is no fear that GM would drop the EREV, nor is there fear that Prius won’t have a 12 mile AER and Ford and other companies their BEVs.
Regardless of what these companies think the market share for these car are, and however hard it is to discern future oil prices and government subsidies, all the companies know for sure
- Oil may temporarily drop at times, but no new oil exploration will happen with prices below $70/brl and that price will keep going up, so over 2012-2022 it is easy to know that oil will average over $100/brl. Current Oil fields deplete at a 6.7% a year rate so any drops below $70 portend future shortages. Prices dropped temporarily after the 2008 spike but have resumed equilibrium with production costs, and of course spikes can happen with middle east conflicts –
- There will always be folks that want to drive cars that make no pollution
- there will always be folks that that don’t want to prop up Russia and Iran and Venezuella and all those oil countries that harbor extremest muslims
So there is no doubt a big market for these cars that are coming, GM, Ford Toyota and others will be there to fight for the market.
The only issue is how fast this market develops which is hard to predict without knowing
- the level of government subsidies going forward, such as expansion of the credits to more cars and at time of purchase
- the price of oil at any time
- the advancement of the technology
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:32 am)No, he’s too shy for that.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:33 am)GM is ‘willing’ to pay 30M…
Doesn’t Obamanomics have a pay cap of 500K ?
+6
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:35 am)New Year’s Resolutions 2010:
1.) FInd out the word limit on stories at GM-Volt.com
2.) See how many words I can put in ‘single quotation marks’ in one piece
Todays results: 923 and 14 respectively
/pretty strong start
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:36 am)I think Mr. Whitacre is there to finally set it up right. Many people are skeptical about Mr. Whitacre’s business integrity here, but at this position, I’m not at all skeptical that Ed will find just the right combination for upper management that will have GM accelerating upwards in 2010.
Ed is a “no bs” guy that is exactly what is initially needed to do all these things. Even though he may still be close to petroleum interests, the entire globe is watching his every decision, and, he would never risk his reputation for effectiveness. I think the process, although seemingly slow to some, is going at the right speed for how a crucial set of upper management “group dynamics” needs to be set up. No mystery about all that.
GM will have a good year in 2010, all the signs are there from my perspectives. Thanks Mr. Whitacre, and, could you try to get our “out the door” Voltec costs down 7% somehow from the base cost of $39,500.? (Especially since we may not need that second anticipated traction battery?) That would be quite heroic.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:36 am)Wasn’t that a song by Al Stewart?
Check iTunes.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:41 am)But can they make cars people will buy? Or can they legislate that people will buy their cars???
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:41 am)“…for two of Ed Whitacre’s poker playing buddies ex-employees at AT&T…”
Ouch. I’ll bet Lyle just slid 1,000 slots down in the GM delivery list for the Volt.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:50 am)Yes, they *can* build cars people will buy, but it remains to be seen if they will. I suppose Congress could pass laws that are so onerous that they could “encourage” the sale of certain cars, but obviously GM cannot. I think that such an effort by congress would just result in people hanging onto their current vehicles.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+6
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:53 am)I would like to see Jay Leno on the board.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:01 am)Already cracked. See Chris Liddel http://gm-volt.com/2009/12/26/op-ed-meet-chris-liddell-new-gm-cfo-and-maybe-next-ceo/
“… annual salary of $750,000…and a $3.45 million dollar (in stock) bonus payable in 2012, plus an additional $2 million if GM can repay the $6.7 billion it owes to the US government.”
+5
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:08 am)What we need is a community organizer with no business experience at all.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:10 am)Was there a reason given for firing Ken Cole, like maybe he didn’t bow low enough to the new leader? I’ll bet that there is a legal restraint on Ken Cole not to publish his side of the story, like maybe posting on this site.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:12 am)Great post. I’m sure GM would be willing to pay the money to get Cook, they were trying to find ways to spend all of the money they have already by dumping more money on the Volt just to get it for sale a few months sooner. I’d bet they’d love having someone like Tim Cook, however as you said, Apple’s not going to let him go if they can help it. If he is really even considering it, it will be because he wants a change of scenery.
I think it was a mistake to bring people in from AT&T which is starting to look like its been a very poorly managed company. They’re solution for bandwidth shortages since iPhones came on is to try to more effectively limit bandwidth instead of finding way to boost it for people that otherwise love the service. I also can’t imagine them having the skill set to run GM.
As for Ken Cole, you’ve gotta hand it to him for working so many miracles in a matter of months but look what it’s done to GM’s PR. That is definitely old GM BS that they need to get rid (or at least sweep under the rug). Of course as you posted, it looks like the new GM is just as much about winning favors through politics and lobby groups.
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:20 am)You can bet Ed Whitacre has a better insight on peak oil than anyone outside of the oil business, since he is an ExxonMobile board member. The real question is what is their attitude towards it? To make all the money they can now, or save oil for future generations and concentrate purely on the petrochemical side of the business.
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:23 am)A helicopter airborne hunter is the best for the U.S.
She’s doing a fine job of thinning the Bigfoot population up in Alaska. We could use a skunk ape lobbyist. Or an endangered species czar of some sort.
=D~
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:27 am)Skunk Ape Lobbyist. Now thats Funny. Somehow I think the Skunk Ape probably has someone in Washington pulling for them… (and I think the airborn hunters may quit before the Volt comes out)
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:27 am)No, and they never say fire.
No executive has been ‘fired’ (point to the quotation marks) yet at GM. It is just the way the termination of executives are handled pretty much anywhere. I’m pretty sure when a exec is fired they are sat down and are given three options for their exodus on the official press release:
1.) Retiring
2.) Exploring other opportunities
3.) Spending time with family
Usually, they go with number 3. Mr. Cole apparently look number one.
“Ken W. Cole, currently the vice president of Government Relations and Public Policy who joined GM in 2001, will remain with the company for the next several months as an advisor until his retirement later in 2010.”
Source: http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_gm.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2009/Dec/1230_montford
Generally you can tell how the exec went out by the quotes (or lack thereof) attributed to him by other members of the continuing executive after his departure.
+6
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:53 am)=============================
No, Lyle is still probably OK, but statik has just cost Canada its Volt allocation for the next four years……………
Why don’t we go back to talking about the car????
+3
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:55 am)===========
Although im not a republican , i thought palin did a very good job cleaning up Alaska ,a very corrupt state before she took over. If you want to fault her for being a hunter,well at least she don,t shoot her fellow hunters in the face(cheney)
Jan 3rd, 2010 (12:11 pm)LOL, sorry Canada!
And yes, PLEASE let’s get away from the petty political comments and get back to the *car*. +10
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (12:22 pm)Well, so much for GM having trouble with recruiting. Getting Liddell was impressive, but I thought that was about him wanting to be CEO. And that GM was lucky to get him (as CFO anyway). Could they keep him as CFO if he lost the CEO job?
But Tim Cook? I don’t believe it. Why would he leave Apple for GM? Apple! One of the most innovative companies in the world. If not the most innovative company. He probably doesn’t need anymore money, and it would give him a chance to make a name for himself…but still…I just don’t see it.
And I don’t know how much he knows about manufacturing. Apple makes stuff. In China. That’s totally different than GM which is all about manufacturing directly. And in North America. That said he might be able to learn. And, obviously, GM would be crazy to turn him down.
About Ken Cole–GM got what they did because of the change in administrations, because we were in the middle of a financial crisis, and because the US needs an auto industry. And GM and Ford are the only one we’ve got. Or are ever likely to have. Not because Ken Cole was so good at his job. Although he might be for all I know. But if we’re just going by amount of money, they should hire whoever works for AIG.
+3
Jan 3rd, 2010 (12:23 pm)I certainly want to know as much as I can about the Volt. Lyle does a fantastic job of keeping us up on all there is to know about the Volt.
What we don’t know that impacts EREV/BEVs
- future technological developments
- future price of oil
- future government subsidies to get this new tech mainstreamed
To this third point I am very interested in today’s post by Statik. As GM Lobbys for more government money, in what form would that be.
It may be politically difficult for GM to get more direct money and tax credits,,,for that reason lobbying to improve the existing credit for EVs may be the best focus of GM’s efforts as they have the most to gain unless they overprice the volt and let other EVs take their market share.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (12:24 pm)Who’s in charge of GM matters. If GM doesn’t have good management, they won’t survive long enough to make enough Volts to matter. If they fail, someone else might pick up the Volt program. But there’s absolutely no guarantee of that.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (12:35 pm)It’s not clear that the trio of execs suggested would cause the universe to implode. The key would be to give each guy a domain over which they have absolute direction. Cook’s strength would likely be in product planning and vision – that is what made his work at Apple so effective. Liddel appears to be a guy who can manage the government loan portfolio and grow investor confidence that whatever GM builds from here on will be at the top of its class. With his AT&T background Whiteacre should be a good front man who will inspire investors and consumers and most importantly – return GM fully to the private sector. As government blunders and misdirection (e.g. “global warming” “global government” schemes) continue to unfold, GM needs to return the taxpayer money ahead of schedule and sell the IPO for financing.
Auto makers need to move as fast as consumer electronics makers from here on. They are building essentially electronic products – albeit with a mechanical component. EVs, PHEVs are electronics products and will need to respond to market changes as quickly as makers of iPods and cell personal computers.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (12:37 pm)I totally agree with *that*, LauraM. It’s an important thread. I was referring to the petty references to specific politicians that were not advancing the topic at hand. JMO. Free country and all that.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (12:51 pm)Statik,
The Constitution gives everyone the RIGHT to REDRESS GRIEVANCES, and lobbyists are the incarnation of that RIGHT.
As for the executive shuffle, GM should jettison every exec who resists the pursuit of new revenue generating business models. The car will soon become a content streaming device and GM needs the right execs to achieve it. To date, GM hasn’t even been able to take preorders on the Volt, so we KNOW drastic change is required. If it turns out that their are laws preventing GM from taking preorders, then GM needs lobbyists to redress that grievance, as well as shape policy for streaming content to their vehicles.
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (12:54 pm)I feel like I just read some woman’s gossip magazine. I hope I don’t see too many more articles like this one, waste of my time.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (12:58 pm)Jason, not sure I could agree on that point. The Constitution tried to deal with priviledge, not just redress. We were escaping a King and his cronies after all and the everyday subject had no voice, nor th colonies. Lobbyists are formed and do outbid the commoner and step to the front of the line and be heard – for the right price. It isn’t a right in the Constituion, I suggest even Scalia would disagree with that point, and he’s about as zealous a right wing part of the court as it comes.
Good luck getting a Chevy Volt with rights to be first in line going to the commoner – doubtful.
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (1:16 pm)They cannot do either of those. What they can do, and likely will do, is get an extended or bigger government subsidy for the cars they do make, including Volt and perhaps others. That will make the price differential smaller and perhaps even give Volt an edge.
Yes, gm can do it. Look at the ongoing governmental cash flow to GMAC (more billions even now), which is GM in another form. Mr Whitacre’s strength at AT&T was its relationships to the feds, so strong that George Will call AT&T one of the US government’s ‘ministries’ (using the terminology of the old Soviet Union).
So if the government tilts the playing field enough, gm cars will sell fine. The question is whether gm can design and build cars that are good enough that people will want them without subsidy. I hope so, but I think the jury still is out.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (1:28 pm)As usual they will hire some big shot & pay him tons of $$$ but GM has to produce good quality cars ..& be efficient ..None of this wil be accomplished without a nut-bolt guy who understands the buisness ..
GM folks are used to big profits on big SUV & so so quality & more emphasis on Advertisments to lure people in ..0% loans etc ..
In Contrast look at Honda, Nissan they spend very little on Advertisment but more on reserach & good quality products ..Fors is now leaning in that direction ,,Only time will tell wheteher GM has leaned anything from its past ..
+3
Jan 3rd, 2010 (1:40 pm)That’s a good point: GM *management* is crucial to its success or failure.
I’ve read so many articles blaming the UAW for killing GM, I forgot about the role of management…
If GM had some executives familiar with Peak Oil, and the recent and future rise in the price of oil, they wouldn’t have put so many resources into the Chevrolet Tahoe, Avalanche, Suburban and GMC Yukon and Denali recently. Not to mention their purchase of the Hummer brand…
Sure, large high-markup SUV’s were good for some quarterly profits, but clearly not a good longterm strategy for the 21st century. I was wondering why those overpaid, lazy factory workers kept cranking them out…
Jan 3rd, 2010 (1:48 pm)Tangentially related to the topic, but the NY Times has just run a terrific story about the entire pay issue for bailed out companies today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/magazine/03Compensation-t.html?scp=4&sq=kenneth%20feinberg&st=cse
One interesting point is how different the pay packages are for automakers like GM and WS bankers. I dunno, maybe one part of the problems we have is how much we pay people who don’t actually make anything compared to those who do. Let’s just say that you don’t see such disparities in countries whose economies are growing briskly.
FWIW one finding has been that promoting people randomly rather than on merit leads to more effective businesses. (it’s the natural result of the Peter principle where success after promotions to new jobs is random). Personally it’s annoying that all the bankers believe they are indispensable, which, as the article points out, is much like the captain of the Titanic believing he was absolutely critical to maritime commerce. Seems like calling the bluff of all these geniuses who are threatening to quit would be a great idea. At least you could replace them with someone who has a random chance of success at a much lower price.
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (1:49 pm)GM owns less than 10% of GMAC. And the government’s money has very little to do with auto loans that are related to GM.
GMAC, in addition to its auto loans, also has a residential mortgage division known as Rescap. That unit, Rescap, like all banks, is currently suffering from billion dollar losses, due to the deterioration of the housing market. Most of the government’s money is going to shore up that division.
GMAC also suffers from the fact that it was unable to find private investors after what people saw what happened to the private investors in GM. That likely has nothing to do with its actual numbers compared to say, bank of America and everything to do with its association with the auto industry.
For whatever it’s worth Warren Buffet is reportedly looking into buying Rescap from GMAC, which will, hopefully, put an end to the need for bailout money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BN1OS20091224
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-02/gmac-chief-says-lender-won-t-do-anything-crazy-with-rescap.html
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (1:53 pm)GM is going to be selling more cars in China compared to the US.
How about getting someone from Korea / Japan ? Better still, someone in the US with a Chinese background ?
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:01 pm)Both are clearly at fault. Although I’m sure the enormous (and almost insurmountable) obstacles posed by the UAW had something to do with why GM didn’t have good management. Who wants to work for a company that’s doomed to failure?
However, I really can’t blame GM for building SUVs. Everyone did. (Including Toyota and Honda). Because in the US market, that’s what sold, and that’s where the profits where. It’s not like anyone had a crystal ball that would tell them when the peak oil bomb would actually strike. And with GM’s immediate liquidity problems, they didn’t have the luxury of long term thinking anymore.
They focused on trucks, because that’s where they had the comparative advantage. And other countries couldn’t undercut them with subsidies, artificially low exchange rates and cheaper labor because they were protected with a 25% tariff. Yes. Toyota could compete. (And they eventually tried to with limited success.) But they had to do it on a level playing field. By building in North America.
+6
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:02 pm)This part is OK. My problem is with the idea that a corporation is a “person”. Are you kidding me? A corporation is a legal fiction — technically it’s a few pieces of paper which are called the articles of incorporation. it can’t actually think or talk or in fact do anything a real person can do, nor can it jailed or punished in any way that a normal person can be.
Forget about original intent here, how about reasonable. And how ironic is it that right wing jurists who are always going on about the doctrine of original intent are so willing to unquestionably accept the biggest departure from that doctrine imaginable? Is there any evidence whatsoever that the the framers of the Constitution ever even entertained the notion that Constitutional protections should be extended to pieces of paper?
So no, I don’t see corporate lobbyists as being the incarnation of the Constitution, unless you can point out where in the Constitution that document offers even the rhetorical “scintilla” of support for the notion that corporations are entitled to constitutional protections.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:03 pm)Does this mean the Volt’s interior will only come in iPod white? Please say it ain’t so!
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:10 pm)If your one of those people who believes that we are not adding to global warming wake up. Look at the number of coal burning power plants on the planet. Power plant boilers are very very inefficient and pump maga-calories into the atmosphere not to mention CO2 which contribute to heat retention in the atmosphere.
As for global government schemes, China is moving on becoming the financial center of the world. Back in the 1980′s, American manufacturing firms were partnering with Japanese companies to maintain market share in the global economy. It was predicted then that China would become number one, and only by joining forces with the Japanese could the U.S. maintain second place with them.
Manufacturing has been slowly disappearing in the U.S. which will lead our nation into becoming a second rate country. The new direction into a greener economy is a last chance for this nation to retain our place in the world as a leader.
The move to find a new CEO is short order is essential to GM having a successful IPO. GM has already committed to paying back the loan of taxpayer money early. With a successful IPO, the government will reap the benefits from the sale of their share of the stock, and finally return GM to the public market.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:29 pm)I don’t think the problems is so much that “corporations” are pieces of paper. The lobbyists are really representing the CEOs or top management of these corporations. And the shareholders of the companies. And they are actual people who are entitled to Constitutional protections.
The problem is that lobbyists have too much power. Regardless of who they represent. Yes. People have the right to redress grievances. But how that translates into different corporations having multi-million dollar lobbyist units is beyond me. And, our system, where the candidate with the most campaign donations almost always wins the election, has made it even worse. It’s supposed to be one person one vote. And we’ve developed a system where it’s practically one dollar one vote. And the corporations happen to be the ones with the money. And these lobbyist units are a huge part of that.
By the way, I don’t blame GM for hiring lobbyists. At this point, it’s practically the price of admission for a big company to do business in the US. But I think the whole system that makes it necessary is disgraceful. And it’s seriously impeding us economically, environmentally, and even when it comes to the basic functions of government, including our civil rights, and ensuring our safety.
As far as the founder’s original intentions–the founders were much more worried about buying votes (which has become what has happened) than any individual policy differences. So, I really doubt that our current system is in line with their preferences.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:41 pm)German cars are made by heavily unionized workfloors, yet they are the gold standard for cars still. So, absolutely, take a look at management and realize the blunders. Hopefully they’ll take a look at a better CEO from the outside rather than an old friend on the golf course. Ford finally went outside and picked a CEO from a highly unionized Boeing and they are doing relatively well considering the market. I went out and bought 2 Lincoln MKX (Ford products) about a year ago when the down turn ticked and the quality is exceptional, like Toyota is stated to be. The vehicles are Buick quiet, unlike Honda noisemakers. And the electronic integration hallmark – just as Korea claims as cutting edge.
The Chevy Volt, American-made, American FUELED will be the leading edge game changer. I hope to be able to find a real waiting list soon.
-4
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:46 pm)After brutally raping the American Taxpayer for more than $50 billion and still bleeding red ink every quarter the MORE SHAKEUP THE BETTER.
Mr. W needs to fill the ranks with loyal executives and get rid of the dead drift wood at the New GM.
Having been exposed to the inner workings of the U.S. auto industry since the seventies I would say that GM desperately needs some young visionary leadership, someone like Elon Musk at Tesla, he would be a very good choice at this point in time.
As an aside: IMO every single mid-level manager at GM needs to be shown the door immediately and rightly kicked to the curb. THE SOONER THE BETTER.
This company is still be run poorly, at least Mr. W is a man of action, we are tired of talk and throwing billions down the toilet every quarter.
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:47 pm)I find it amusing how MUCH credit is given to these millionaire CEO/CFO/C-whatevers. If the company does well, they are given credit for leadership skills/vision. If the company does badly, they get ousted. What about the other thousands of employees in the companies? What about the economic conditions, good or bad, that are out of anyone’s control? It’s like the Michael Jordan analogy. So MUCH credit was given to Phil Jackson as coach of the Chicago Bulls (when Michael Jordan was playing for him). Without Jordan, Phil couldn’t win. When Jordan left the Bulls (the second time), Phil went to LA where he had Shaq/Kobe. All of a sudden, Phil once again was regarded as a great coach.
I dont think a company can simply solve its problems, or guarantee its success, by being the highest bidder for a millionaire CEO. I would rather have them just find the right person for the job, and possibly think outside the box. Save some of the $ being spent on CEO’s & bonuses to keep the technical talent in your company, or possibly hire more, or invest in R&D, or whatever. A company may have a high-paid, desireable CEO, but if the poduct is terrible, underperforms, cost too much, etc., it doesn’t really matter.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:51 pm)I don’t think waste heat is considered a source of “global warming”. True, it can have local effects, like the warmed up coolant water from nuclear power plants altering the ecosystem of the rivers and coastline where they dump it, or the ‘heat island’ effects of cities on the local plant life.
But if those sources of heat were turned off tomorrow, the effects would end pretty quickly. CO2 however, lingers in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, affecting how quickly infrared radiation can make its way from the planet’s surface to outer space. This “thermal blanket” will continue to warm up the planet for a long time, changing the equilibrium point between solar radiation hitting the Earth and subsequent radiation returning to space.
Even if nuclear fusion was perfected, widespread and cheap by 2070, the CO2 we have dumped into the atmosphere by then will continue to warm up the planet for about a century (thermal inertia) – it is the *tipping points* the climate scientists are worried about, the positive feedbacks that could come back to haunt mankind (the albedo changes in the Arctic ocean – white ice to dark water; the melting of the Siberian permafrost, the bubbling up of coastal methane hydrates, etc).
The more electric cars in the world we have running on low/no CO2 energy sources , the better for the climate at the end of this century.
-10
Jan 3rd, 2010 (2:52 pm)(click to show comment)
Jan 3rd, 2010 (3:01 pm)Any organization / enterprise has as much right to redress grievances as any person. Are you saying that unions, the Sierra Club and established churches shouldn’t be able redress grievances?
Corporations are an extension of property rights, as championed by John Locke, who greatly influenced the founding fathers. I cited specific examples of reasonable issues these lobbyists could pursue – domestic pre-order policy vs. dealerships – and how content can be distributed / streamed to vehicles which cross state lines. How else can corporations get their concerns vetted?
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (3:20 pm)I wish people won’t complain about large vehicles. If folks can afford them and they need the space for whatever reason this is a free country The issue should not be the size of the vehicle but the energy/propulsion.
Oil was the 20th century, and it was cheap and led to economic growth. But it also led to hundreds of millions of deaths in wars as countries fought over this stuff (you think Germany would have invaded Russia or Japan China if it wasn’t for oil, it was all about oil).
The Volt is one important step in one important piece of the solution to our future prosperity. But if folks want an EREV Hummer with 40 mile AER thats ok with me.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (3:53 pm)Interesting metaphor.
If $50 billion is “brutally raping” the American Taxpayer, what would you call the $714 billion spent so far on invading and occupying Iraq ?
That Shia ruled country is now signing cooperation treaties with Iran, and has awarded the contract for developing the Rumaila oil field (one of the largest in the world) to British Petroleum and China’s CNPC, and the contract for the giant Majnoon oil field to Britain’s Shell and Malaysian Petronas.
These energy companies are expected to increase production at the oil fields above existing production levels, for a service charge of $2 for each additional barrel produced, the Ministry of Oil says. The Iraqi government rejected bids for other oil fields and a natural gas field because the bidders did not agree to the service charge set by the Ministry of Oil.
My, my, my, what a *huge* change to the Production Sharing Agreements (PSA’s) that the US State Department was planning for in 2002 with their Future of Iraq project in which Iraqi exiles and members of the then opposition met with US officials to plan for the future of Iraq after regime change. The project’s Oil and Energy subgroup, whose members included early Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, met four times between December 2002 and March 2003. The key feature of PSA’s (besides their fantastic returns on investment to the oil companies) were that they could not be changed by future adverse legislation. Nail down the contract before the country gets on its feet, and its ‘gravy train’ for 30 years.
Whoops, didn’t work out. The oil companies wanted:
1) the right to oil reserves – a contract that allows them to “book” these reserves, and a deal that guarantees their right to extract these reserves for many, many years.
2) An opportunity to make large profits – 50% of all revenues allows sharing in oil prices going up, or a much bigger find than expected by exploratory drilling. Service contracts are just fee based, and do not allow speculative profits.
3) Predictability of tax and regulation – seek to lock governments into long contracts that fix the terms of investment.
How did it come to *this* :
…the winning bid from Petronas and Japex for the right to develop the 860-million-barrel Gharraf field in southern Iraq was secured when the companies agreed to a fee of just $1.49 a barrel.
and the only contract to go to an American company is a joint-venture, service contract:
The oil giants have secured a deal to develop Iraq’s West Qurna field, which is one of the largest in the oil-rich south of the country. Shell will have a 20pc stake and Exxon will have an 80pc stake in the joint venture, boosting production to 2.325m barrels per day. Iraq held a televised bidding process for the rights to develop its fields earlier this year, but the vast majority of majors were shocked at the low rates the country was prepared to offer.
All that blood and treasure, and hardly any oil to show for it.
What’s the metaphor for that ? Brutally gang-raped while shooting itself in the foot ?? Has the traumatized American Taxpayer put that one out of its memory already ?
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (3:53 pm)As a Dr. I prescribe a dose of http://www.climatedepot.com for your concerns about C02.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (3:57 pm)I agree. Its funny how ppl drive a Prius (or whatever) and point fingers at SUV’s, but then jet-set around the world using hundreds of gallons more of airline fuel. To each their own, and lead by example. People should have the choice to do what they want.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (4:01 pm)Thanks Don, I hadn’t seen that.
I don’t know if I agree across the board with it…but it ties everything together nicely and is a remarkably thourogh/coherent. If anyone isn’t up to speed/hasn’t been following it…that would pretty much do the trick.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (4:07 pm)This is the way I see large organizations. IMO, these guys are so far up the tree that they do not affect product design or schedules very much at all (and if they do they probably just screw them up). The rank and file 30-40 year top management crews keep the ship running with or without the help of the top management. As long as they do not come in as hatchetmen, John Doe in the battery lab will keep doing what he is doing to make sure the Volt is a success.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (4:13 pm)“It’s an issue that people come at from different angles. There’s the equity approach: Is it “fair” that executives at big companies should make 275 times (today’s approximate ratio) what their average employees make? ”
Who was the CEO who said he would never pay himself more than 10 times the lowest earner in his company? It was a major corporation.
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (4:22 pm)It’s not past tense. They still do. It’s not like SUVs have gone away or the manufacturers abandoned them or anything. They’re just not selling as well as they used to. GM’s problem wasn’t that they built SUVs, it’s that they let their car line go.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (4:36 pm)Its quite believable Cole, 62, wants out from GM’s Washington hothouse. Plus, all three – Cole and his two AT&T successors – are Texans with strong Bush family ties. So its very likely Cole approved his successors. Given all the clumsy heavy-handed Whitacre firings of course there’s great suspicion of political tossing. However, the CEO ‘search’ is another whole issue. I strongly doubt the recently hired CFO is a leading candidate. Same with the Apple COO. Both these guys share a common defect; neither has the slightest auto industry background. There are a number of competent candidates. But few are politically correct. You can take this to the bank… the Administration picks up a chip meaning its fingerprints will be all over whoever the board votes for.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (4:36 pm)I don’t know the company exactly. Maybe you are thinking of that Blanchard guy that wrote ‘The One Minute Manager’/'The On Minute Entrepreneur?
This kind of pay scale/practice is far more common outside of the the US…places like Asia and Europe. (Well I guess it was more common here in the 70s too)
Jan 3rd, 2010 (4:37 pm)I read the article from the link you posted (thanks for the link). I suspect that I came away with a bit different “take” than you did. They seemed to paint a picture of the CEO’s/muckety-mucks feeling like they were an entitled class (and maybe they do), but personally, I worry more about the majority of our citizens getting to feel the same way – whether they are productive, or not. JMO
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (4:50 pm)I didn’t say that waste heat causes global warming. It contributes to it.
Just as the waste heat from all the ICE on the planet. Both coal burning plants and ICE dump CO2 into the atmosphere. I understand the causes of global warming. My point has to do with conservation. We are tackling the problem caused by the ICE by shifting to electric transportation; but we also need to solve the problem with our coal burning power plants and coal burning boilers in factories. Either by developing means of cleaning up coal or changing over to alternate energy sources or combination of both is needed. Even if the majority of scientist are wrong about our causing global warming, it makes sense to do business in a planet friendly manor. It is definitely an area where the U.S. can profit from creation of new jobs, clean up the air we breath, and make the planet a healthier place to live.
The occurrence of asthma in children is prevalent around large metropolitan areas. Outdoor air pollutants exacerbate the occurrence of disease. Traffic pollution is a large contributor. The shift to electric transportation will solve part of the problem. We also need to reduce pollution created by our power plants. Global warming is only one of the problems that EVs will solve. The beginning of the end for addiction to foreign oil and its tremendous drain on U.S. capitol, and cleaning up our atmosphere for health reason are just as important.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (5:16 pm)This is a good way to think due to the overselling of man made global warming by the activist scientists. There are plenty of good reasons (like air quality) to make one consider using less oil and coal. If we focus on some of these other less controversial issues we can avoid the C02 debate that will be raging for some time now and get something done.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (5:18 pm)hi Randy 34, did I fault Plain?
The 2008 presidential representation was the weirdest in recent history. A hot headed senior with multiple physical issues. Shot down in the Vietnam war. McCain states, “Intercepted a missile with my jet”. Backed up by a young woman from Alaska. Waking up before sunrise to head out to shoot animals before school. Hunts wolves from a helicopter. Beauty pageant participant.
The Republicans passed on Mitt Romney an American businessman born March 12, 1947. Born in Detroit, Michigan, former vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., a management consulting firm based in Boston. 1998 served as the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee. President and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City.
Romney contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated the $825,000 salary he earned as President and CEO to charity. He wrote a book about his experience titled Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games.
Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003. Upon entering office, Romney faced a projected $3 billion deficit, but a previously enacted $1.3 billion capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2 billion. Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, by 2006 the state had a $700 million surplus and was able to cut taxes.
Sure glad we passed on this one.
=D~
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (5:20 pm)Are you one of the veterinarians that signed the Global Warming Petition ?
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
I’ve seen that blog before, thanks. I’m glad so many people are interested in climate science, I wish more of them could understand it. I’m also glad Marc Morano is no longer advising or speechwriting for Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the single most confused Senator when it comes to climate change; but I’m not sure a journalist, documentary maker, radio talk show host, and national television correspondent like Marc is the best person to explain climate science to the ignorant layperson. At least he has some nice graphics on his blog …
I prefer more authoritative websites, like
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/
As an MIT trained scientist, I value the work of serious researchers like James Hansen more than the silly pronouncements of a “Lord” Monckton,
but blogs are fun for seeing how the ‘person on the street’ misunderstands things.
There’s going to be a lot more angry ‘people on the street’ when the stragglers figure out what is going on…
Jan 3rd, 2010 (5:28 pm)Actually the lobbyists are representing the corporation. Not the CEO or any actual person.
BTW your argument that people own the corporation so therefore the corporation is entitled to constitutional protections leads to the conclusion that since a cabbage can be owned by a person a cabbage should be considered a “person” for Constitutional purposes.
I haven’t ever seen a persuasive argument made on this point. The original holding was in a throw away footnote. Sooner or later a real decision needs to be made. My point is that it’s inconsistent to say that a tree doesn’t have standing but a corporation does as a constitutional matter. The tree is at least a real tangible thing, not a legal fiction. This is one of those issues that should be addressed legislatively rather than through an overly activist Court.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (5:40 pm)I think we just have a miscommunication – I essentially agree with you, but some people think the actual “waste heat” of engines and power plants is what is warming up the planet. The warm car engine cools down, and the heat goes to ‘warm the atmosphere’, etc.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/another-kind-of-global-warming/
I think this is a much, much smaller effect than the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I haven’t looked at this closely, but the above analysis suggests the waste heat of human-produced power might warm the planet by an additional 0.07 deg C by 2100 if power use grows at 2% every year…
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (5:45 pm)I’ve never understood why climate change has become so political. At some level it’s pretty much one, two, three. We know greenhouse gases increase temperature. We know human activity is releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases. Therefore human activity is effecting temperature change.
Obviously climate is complicated and there are contravening affects — particulate pollution decreases temperature and humans produce a lot of that as well. But the greenhouse gas part seems straightforward.
As for who says what, every scientist I’ve met who publishes in peer reviewed journals says that it is real. The disagreements among what you’d normally think of as experts seems to be the magnitude of the effect or the cost/benefit of trying to ameliorate the effect. On the other hand, the most adamant “deniers” haven’t been experts. Most have been geologists working for oil companies or random guys with blogs. That doesn’t of course mean the experts are right, even they temper their findings by saying that it’s quite possible they’re wrong, but it would seem that the experts would have more credibility.
But again, I don’t understand why this has become a political issue so obviously I’m missing something.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (5:50 pm)If you look at Consumer reports, German cars trail American and Japanese cars on reliability and overall quality. And the only German cars that do well in America are the luxury versions. (The same way the Corvette is the most successful American car in the Japanese market.) Volkswagen a tiny share of the American market.
And, by the way, most “german” cars sold here? Are also made here by non-union workers.
That said Japanese workers in Japan are also unionized. But they have a different structure and culture than Americans and Europeans do.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (5:50 pm)Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic are we?
Or is it the Hindenburg?
I forget which one now…..
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:01 pm)That’s an interesting possibility due to possibly severe marketing and promotional risk.
One of the things I always have to do is to factor any student’s (or writer’s)
***********
*motive*
***********
For me, that is the beginning place to understand a viewpoint.
That takes far more energy to measure the depth of someone’s statements. And, it takes far, far longer than just seeing the simple context of the phrases written. It takes a lot longer in context of the variances of topics. It takes far more effort than surface processing of statements (strong cognitive energies applied). (This must be excersized more as we get older).
At first, I am like Tag, in that everyone starts out with an equal measure of credibility.
Everyone.
At first, I am sometimes puzzled and have to remain silent. (??g.) But that patience pays off.
I start eveyone out at the 80 percentile of credibility. What their philosophies are take them upwards or downwards from there. (Exactly like Tag).
But often times, we gradually define our differences and similarities from each other by the topic, but sometimes the higher definition comes about from the conversations.
That is important because you agree with someone’s thesis, or you may not agree *entirely* with someone’s thesis, or, you at times may be in *complete disagreement* with a thesis. In some cases, you are in such complete disagreement with the
*************
*motives * (if they remain undiscernable as well),
*************
that a writer has, due to their philosophical stances, (or complete lack of philosohy entirely), that you have something called an
**************
*antithesis*
**************
or antithetical viewpoint. (Even toward the long term deliberate apparent **abscence of a well defined philosophy**, including consistently-projected simplicity, (which never exists in motivational human nature) ).
98% of posters here want to learn it seems to me. It sadly seems to me also, that some have not only given up learning in the beginning of their careers, some have given it up toward the end of their careers. Shallow attacks against GM execs as if it were a sport is unChristian.
In the Sixties, there was a book called “I’m OK, You’re OK”.
Sometimes it seems that when composition resorts to the “Their not OK, [so that you might beleive that] I am” (if relentless personal attacks are waged against them) = (I’m not OK, so you’re not either), then there has to be a retrospective of everything ever written by that writer (in honest contexts please) to attempt to guage if the longitudinal composition is vain and shallow, or, in opposition, is attempting to help others learn or empower them somhow.
We are attempting to adopt entirely new and somewhat risky changes. Just plunking them into consumers hands is not only unwise, it is prone to misunderstanding, puzzlement, and acceptance risk. Want a Volt? You have to pay for one first. If you have lots of home equity or a nice 401k, then terrific for you. Most reader’s for this site (including me) most certainly do not, I’d bet. Many more would like to have a better paying job. I do not find that without discusssional merit. Volt is philosophically important to so many, that the improving of it’s mechanisms toward ownership is not a petty thing. Relentless attacks against GM execs *is* a petty thing.
I put my name out here. Most of the rest of you do not.
If you have any credibility at all, then start using your real names like I do, because it is getting ridiculous that people can hide behind computer screen anonymity, and sling mud at GM execs, and, I am quite fed up with it.
(Please, do not have cute excuses that this is not happening. I’d suggest “Reality Therapy” if someone does. Just think about this for a few days before responding if anyone would be so kind.)
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:06 pm)Obviously, other employees are important as well. But the CEO is in charge of picking the employees and putting together a team. They are the ones with the vision, and, ultimately, they are the ones that make the make-or-break decisions. It’s kind of like Truman said–the buck stops here.
That said, there’s obviously more to the story than just the CEO or top management. I don’t think anyone could have turned around GM pre-bankruptcy. The union pension and health care liabilities were just too big for any company to meet. Add a competitive marketplace where they used to be part of an oligopoly (and the competition is subsidized by Japanese government policy), a poor reputation based on when they were an oligopoly and could get away with such things, and it’s amazing they survived this long.
But I completely agree that CEO salaries in this country are bizarre. For one thing, DonC’s right that it’s hard to tell in advance whether or not a given CEO will be successful before they actually take the job. But even aside from that–it’s one thing to make that kind of money in stock when you built the company from scratch like Bill Gates, or Larry Ellison, or Steve Jobs. It’s another to come in from the outside, and get a salary plus stock options worth $30 million dollars a year. It’s insane.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:07 pm)Once upon a time it may have been common in NYC. I remember the “Doormans Wages” being discussed. The guy on the top floor made seven times what the doorman made. Ideally you tried to get a job in the company with the best paid doorman…
Now the guy on the top floor also proably had a company paid membership in the local country club. I do not think he had a company jet. Of couse not. That was before jets.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:12 pm)Maybe. But their interests align pretty closely. A cabbage doesn’t have any interest before congress. Neither does a corporation. It’s a piece of paper. It doesn’t care if it’s successful or not. The CEO (and other top management) does. And the shareholders who have stock in the company do.
My point is simply that if they forbade corporations to hire lobbyists, they would be hired by the same “bundling” technique that corporations currently use to make political donations. The effect is the same. And does it really matter if it’s a corporation that’s buying votes or a wealthy individual who owns a corporation?
I’d much rather focus on campaign finance reform, and reducing the role of lobbyists in our government regardless of who’s hiring them.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:21 pm)Hansen is an activist and NASA has been proven wrong more than once on the climate data from an amateur researcher in Canada. Morano is more qualified than the railroad engineer that runs the UN IPCC panel. I have a PhD in mass and energy transfer systems, model energy systems for more than 30 years (and understand the trouble with modeling heat balances), and read extensively on the man made global warming theories (scientific papers not blogs). There are big questions with the theory. The feedback mechanisms have been exaggerated. A good energy balance is very difficult to get right in the Lab. On a global scale it will rely on more assumptions than data.
I think the common man on the street is rightfully concerned by the fact that the IPCC panel uses data coming from scientists that are hiding data their raw data from Freedom of Information Act requests and these guys have conspired to block papers that do not agree with their views. This is not science and tells me there is more to the story. NASA too is accused of not releasing data as they are supposed to (not their massaged data but the real data) Some scientists are still waiting, years, for FOI data requets that are supposed to happen in a few weeks. Something is fishy with man made global warming science and we should not be ready to send our money all over the world to pay for our Carbon use until the science is settled. It does not matter what the man on the street thinks, I am meeting more scientists that doubt the theory and there are more and more peer reviewed papers poking holes through the man-made aspects every week.
Thank goodness for people like Marc Marono at climate depot for giving us further access to news and views that the typical media (with their over-the-top stories about global warming) do not deliver.
But as someone pointed out earlier, there are plenty of other good reasons for cars like the Volt even if the climate science becomes totally uncertain.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:31 pm)I worry about that too. Don’t get me wrong, I love my country. But the sense of entitlement some people have is unbelievable. One of my friends complained when oil was $4.00 a gallon, that it “shouldn’t be more than $1.50.” And the government should “do something about it.” She had to take the subway to work. The horror. And then there’s the people who get insulted when I suggest they take a minimum wage job when they’re worried their unemployment is about to run out.
That said, it’s hard to condemn someone who’s making $50,000 a year for complaining about high oil prices when CEOs are flying helicopters to work every day. And it’s made even worse, when CEO’s who get fired for running their companies into the ground, get to walk away with $210 million dollars in serveraance. (Like, say, a former unnamed CEO at Home Depot who later took over at Chrysler.)
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:31 pm)I share your concerns about credibilities. However, it will not be long after all, perhaps only four to seven years, that the various studies become known to have or not have merit and credibility. In either case, where there is uniform agreement that some sorts of changes need adaptation, then it might be reasonable to begin early to work out *possible* altenative adaptive solutions, which may not be unreasonable. I think it won’t be very much longer to know one way or the other for the various interdependencies and mechanisms, and what we then ought to efficiently do.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:31 pm)May I disagree just a little? I like cars. I have washed cars for a living. I have made car parts for most of my life. (now I make medical instruments for surgeons, but still I like to make stuff) I did when I first joined this site way back, I used my name. However I am not a professional and my name ultimately does not matter. I believe there is truth to the saying you are what you drive. So I use what I drive as a handle. I also appreciate cars even if I can not afford them. Cars are part of society. Some folks say what they drive, and I like and respect that. It gives me a better understanding of who they are. More than a name.
That being said, I do respect those that use their name. It adds a certain amount of credibility to their beliefs and statements. I have been guilt of tossing a figurative hand grenade or two. I do it simply to stir the pot. I do try and stay away from politics, however politics can have a very strong effect on the automobile. I do enjoy Statik, he gives a small insight to the top floor…
I wonder if there is a car guy on the top floor, and what it would mean. Marketing and accounting are important. But should there also be some sort of passion? Is not passion what made GM great to begin with? Hence my nomination of Jay Leno.
+3
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:33 pm)Back on the topic of gm’s corporate leadership, I hope that whomever is selected it gets settled down soon. When there are multiple firings at high levels, people at lower levels do the best they can to keep on going, but they tuck in their horns and become highly risk averse —> you don’t want to get out on front on some controversial decision and then get fired by the new guy who sees things the other way. When new people come in, whole projects get added support, and others get cancelled, and lots of little things change.
Externally, people who are greatly affected by decisions at gm, and that includes contacts that gm needs — suppliers, government, customers — put plans with gm on hold until things settle down. One aspect is that one never knows how far down the organization people will be replaced. Outsiders are mainly not taking a position for this or that so much as not knowing what to count on from gm next year or the year after. They can be big things — will future gm promote fleet sales, or will it minimize fleet sales? It matters.
So I hope— whomever is selected at however many levels are gett shuffled — they will be good people, will know something substantial about whatever they are supposed to do, and will get in place fast. Continuous reshuffling is bad for everybody.
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:44 pm)With greatest respect, I think Lyle has set things up about right. He has everyone’s email address and can (and sometimes does) contact people directly when needed. At the same time, people are in lots of different situations in the rest of their lives. Some may find it advantageous to post under their names, others too uncomfortable.
We are, after all, only giving thoughts and speculations here. I find them interesting and informative. In most cases I would not know the person by name. I am not in a position to review credentials of anyone, so I try to consider the merit of the thought itself. It’s not perfect, but it is still a good system.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (6:58 pm)Who needs fear? We live in a world where lobbyists are paid to throw everyone under the bus to win the flavor of the day, the irrational wins out because it’s proponents scream the loudest and self dealing is institutionalized. And if gas prices plunge, whether for a few months or a few years, the incipient base of technology to reduce energy and oil use (Volt included) will be placed at risk.
Like you say, don’t fear it, but lets deal with whatever happens, one great example – Lyle!
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (7:04 pm)You sound pretty mad.
What are you going to do, Dan?
Jan 3rd, 2010 (7:19 pm)Dan,
Your position of OK for some but…
I work in a position in the federal govt that is at the pleasure of my bosses and would not like to be quoted in the Washington Post when I talk about how screwed up the Federal govt is.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (7:35 pm)At least you cared to ask.
Ask that people consider compostional motives at greater depth.
And, if I am correct, like you, hope for deeper thoughtfulness.
Thank you for asking that.
Dan.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (7:43 pm)Good answer.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (7:51 pm)The WSJ had an article that showed an inverse relationship between CEO pay and corporate performance. Sorry I do not have a link. However I thought it was worth mentioning.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (7:51 pm)Dan Petit,
I agree with your challenge for others to expose their real names. I stand behind my statements and often link my linkedin.com profile to offer my credentials for review. I also state that I am a Randian Objectivist in normal circumstances, but make allowances in crises for other courses of action.
For the most part, there is far less juvenile sniping in this forum than anywhere else I’ve blogged, so Lyle has been doing a great job policing this site.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (8:04 pm)I suspect he’ll do what we all do here:
opine.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 3rd, 2010 (8:07 pm)That works two ways of course. Where impersonal annonymity behind the computer screen increasingly tempts composition to be without personal responsibility or charity, then, that same impersonal personna ought to take an inverse amount of acceptance that they ought consider deeper introspection of the things composed. This is not about how the site is run, it is about how annonymity breeds contempt for the basic respect of human beings that are just trying to do their jobs at GM. If these same disrespectful compositions were on paper, would these same composers personally hand those to the people that they are writing about in person? Of course not!! Would I hand what I say to whom I am saying it with my real name? I do each time I post.
I do you realize that you can not post your name because you may be identified for undesired retaliatory reasons (which in this retaliatory partisan climate of the past ten years, is frighteningly valid for almost everyone). This is the reason why very fine people get pressured to no longer be my friend as they get pressured in this corrupt manner.
All I am saying is that when annonymity is needed, (and it is), that what creeps into the compositional situation is often too inhumane and compositionally- uncharitable. Walk a mile in those execs’ shoes, and many of these comments would be far more moderate. All I am asking is for that to be so. This is not an unreasonalbe thing to ask.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (8:08 pm)I found this (CEO of Costco), but I’m not sure this is the one i was thinking of.
From the article linked:
“”I figured that if I was making something like 12 times more than the typical person working on the floor, that that was a fair salary,” he said. ”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779
Jan 3rd, 2010 (8:49 pm)It is at Honda, as I was told, where the highest paid person makes five times as much as the lowest paid person.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (8:55 pm)Hansen is the most respected climate scientist in the US – he is an activist only as a private citizen and grandfather. If more people understood climate science, he wouldn’t have to waste his time.
Stephen McIntyre succeeded in finding a tiny error that GISS made when switching over to a new data-collection system in 2000. Such errors are found and corrected all the time in science, such as the errors that seemed to show the oceans were *cooling* when Argo data was first available. This McIntyre found error led to a 0.01 deg C difference in some *US* average temperatures, and 0.001 deg C in global temperatures, which had no effect on the planetary warming trend.
NASA had a math error on a Mars lander, as well, and it crashed – does that mean space travel should be canceled until the engineering is “settled” ?
Dr. Pachauri was educated at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar, but later was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974. He was an Assistant Professor and Visiting Faculty Member at NCSU, and upon returning to India quickly became Director of a Research Division at Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, and later director general ofTERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University. A professional manager of scientists. Not much railroad engineering.
Many PhD’s are more perspiration than inspiration – they are not particularly strong thinkers. Hopefully you will be able to re-evaluate your position on climate science, trying to separate your political leanings from your scientific understanding, as new results become available in the coming years.
Assuming you will be alive in 20 years, you will see the errors in your reasoning. Are you so quick to doubt the competency of other branches of science ? Do you read blogs criticizing particle physics and the early work of the Large Hadron Collider ? Or is it “we should not be ready to send our money all over the world to pay for our Carbon use until the science is settled” that really expresses your reluctance to believe this branch of science ?
I also think it is a waste to pay other countries for “climate mitigation”, like building up coastal barriers against rising sea levels. This does nothing to solve the basic problem. I’m also against “cap and trade”, and would prefer a carbon tax funding development of photovoltaics, wind farms, and nuclear fusion.
See, there’s still lots of room for disagreement and discussion *after* the basic facts of climate science are admitted. And yes, the feedback mechanisms are the most crucial elements of climate modeling – and they might be worse than expected, as for example the accelerated melting of Arctic ice shows, and the *measured* increase in bubbling methane hydrates warn. The science is not “settled”, but the warning bell has rung, and it’s time to start evaluating responses. We might agree on not sending money all over the world for our carbon use, but I disagree that is the only response that is under consideration.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:02 pm)Agreed. It will still be significant although small compared to the capture of radiation from the sun. At best the debate causes people to become more aware of our planet and start thinking how we can improve living here on planet Earth. At we can now view our planet from space and experience its awesome beauty, we can image a scene of it with no blue showing through the cloud cover. I hope that we never do get to see that scene but of all there is in the world to think about, it is the one thing I have become pessimistic about. The emergence of the Volt gives me a thread of optimism. As our planet becomes more and more over-populated, I am hopeful that the young leaders of the world are more conscience of our environment and limited natural resources.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
-1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:09 pm)This is not politics. This is about science and I know a rat when I see one and the Climate Warmest’s are rats. There is genuine debate going on but the people who bring up opposing theories are somehow tied to big oil, referred to as flat earthers or deniers (a link to the idiot Holocaust deniers). This is all rubbish and juvenile on the part of the cabal of scientists, like Hansen, who are pushing the CO2 theories. A friend of mine has tried for years to get the raw data and all he has gotten is the run around. He was a believer a few years ago but after dealing with NASA (Hansens group) and others he now smells a rat also.
We have been told the science is settled and it is not.
We are told Polar bears are in danger and they are not.
With no evidence we are told Hurricanes are going to be worse and they are not.
We are told it is a moral issue to get off of carbon and it is not.
The list of silliness goes on and on. The warming alarmists are the ones playing politics. This is one of those issues where if the lie is repeated long enough, people will believe it.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:19 pm)While there is a strong historical correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, the effect of human activity on temperature is not as clear to me. For example, the “Inconvenient Truth” argument neglects the fact that CO2 stimulates growth and oxygen production in plants, thereby reducing CO2 levels (unless we continue to over-harvest the plant life and pave over the land).
So besides reducing CO2 emissions, we should also be planting trees.
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:21 pm)As it does me, and most of the rest of the folks on this site. The Volt is pretty much as it is. Cost, how many, options, roll out will be forthcoming. We debate whys and wishes. We all want more.
Today I took the snowmobile and went for a ride in the snow to look at the windmills. Beautiful, the snow, the trails, and the windmills. You know I do not understand it all, it is so much bigger than I. However I did enjoy the Journey immensely. I took some pictures with my cellphone. If I was a bit smarter I would post them here.
Cheers, Cheers
+1
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:21 pm)I agree with you that it is good to consider what one is saying and not be too quick to rush to judgments of particular individuals. I think that is true for signed or unsigned comments.
At the same time, we are not a part of the circle of personal friends of high-level corporate executives (except in rare cases), and there rarely are truly personal comments posted. The great majority of comments posted here involve judgments of how well people are doing their jobs. These executives make decisions that affect thousands of other people and may well benefit from having some feedback about them, even when that feedback is critical.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:30 pm)It is political because the public’s money is involved, in huge amounts.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:33 pm)Well, I urge you to learn how to download the images from your cell phone to your computer so you can share them with all of us. The scenes you describe conjure up ethereal images, eye candy for the mind.
As a working associate once said to me: “Seize the moment of curiosity for the acquisition of knowledge.” I don’t remember who he was quoting but I have found it to be sound advise.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (9:45 pm)Way off topic (but that’s never stopped me before (or Statik, for that matter),
Finally found the comparison I was looking for:
Looks like there is a big 2 1/2 (sort of) Prius beater out there (in Europe/Australia), but not by as much as I’d hoped. Ford’s diesel Fiesta Econetic is coming in at a probable 53 mpg combined(doing a ratio comparison from the numbers in the article, pretty big spread on the city/hwy with something like 43/58) vs the Prius’ 50 mpg. Price in U.S. dollars (converted from Australian) would be $22,490.
http://www.cnet.com.au/ford-fiesta-econetic-339295537.htm
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:05 pm)Yup, broke miles of trails with about a foot of fresh powder. I use that sweet smelling synthetic oil too. Local trailmaster says many people gave up on snowmobiles…
The windmills, a product of tax incentives and carbon credits are for me, great to look at. Some folks do not like them. About 380 feet tall they go whoosh whoosh. White like the snow around them. If I were to get a Volt they would provide most of the power. More expensive than coal. Right or wrong I do not know, however there are very large ships that bring us oil. Some how I do not think that is all together right. I used a bit of gas in the snowmobile, however I was enjoying the beauty of the snow, the happy trails, and the machine.
Cheers
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:13 pm)After all the heat and bluster generated by today’s thread, we end with the description of a beautiful snowy scene reminiscent of a Robt Frost work.
Nice.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:39 pm)Feedback is critical as long as its not shallow self-gratuitous GM bashing for what, three years?
How GM might still consider all this is unknown to me.
But it would not surprise me at all if they consider all this shallow critique **and it is the pettiest shallowness I’ve ever relentlessly seen** as a complete disincentive to talk to anyone here, perhaps wondering even if there are some
castles being built in the air,
and,
followed by some who expect to live in them.
Do they need us like a “hole in the head” for all this shallowness?
I sure wouldn’t blame them at all if they ever concluded so.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:46 pm)The AT&T/iPhone deal was bad for Apple, and good for AT&T.
AT&T totally screwed up that deal with very poor coverage and even worse customer service.
I am very afraid for GM. They already had a habit of ignoring their customers.
I was really hoping for a new generation of leadership.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (10:55 pm)This reminds me of my childhood where the park system was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, each park connected to other by bridal paths; horse and buggy was the choice of transportation then. The one that holds the greatest memory was Humboldt Parkway. This majestic path had a north and south road with a vast grassy knoll in the middle. Each side of the roads were lined with Elm Trees that looked like cathedral arches when viewed from each end and traveling along the pathway. Unfortunately, with Dutch Elm disease the trees died and a large part of the parkway was replaced by a submersed concrete highway. At its northern most end Delaware Park with the Buffalo Zoo, Historical Museum, and Art Museum and huge park with nine hole golf course and baseball diamonds, and picnic areas provided a serene environment where one could go to relax, plan, learn, and have fun.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:05 pm)This topic has redeeming value; it has brought discussion that activates fond memories of my childhood: some of the better times when life was not so hectic, and we could find time to enjoy peace and quiet.
Peace on Earth and Good Will to Men!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+2
Jan 3rd, 2010 (11:33 pm)On a lot of levels, the Volt spawns quiet memories of summer days, freed from school, gliding along on my bike – the only sounds were nature’s songs and the tires on the road. I was country born and raised at the foot of a mountain – my mountain. Sitting at the top, I could look out over the valley and just luxuriate in the quiet – nowhere to go, no need to *be* anywhere at a given time. Times I’d miss dearly for years during my professional career. Let’s hope that soon we will have come full circle.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 4th, 2010 (12:08 am)(well not country) in the city riding along Humboldt Parkway with my friends to the tennis courts at Delaware Park. Not exactly like a mountain but the sites and sounds were similar. So +1 for you, Tag.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 4th, 2010 (12:21 am)Sounds like a lot of us could relate to happier times from days gone by.
Getting late, so I’ll close for a few hours.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+4
Jan 4th, 2010 (12:46 am)“Opposing theories“, or just criticism ?
The only pseudo-scientific “theory” I’ve seen that has a chance to explain the 0.19 deg C warming/decade we’ve seen the last 3 decades is *claiming* it was caused by the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) – and the “prediction” that it will start cooling this decade. A prediction easily confirmed/disproved.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm
The only other “theories” I’ve seen are Svensmark’s attempt to explain global temperature movements by the affects of solar winds, cosmic rays, and cloud seeding over the oceans – this has not worked out well, but at least it was a “theory” that could be investigated and argued about.
Then there is Lindzen at MIT, who at least is an MIT professor and has published a few papers (outside his field) on climate modeling, but his recent foray into publishing within the field that pays him so well for lectures, is somewhat embarrassing, since he uses older, uncorrected ERBE data in his paper. He’s not that well read in the literature of climate science…
The “ocean is cooling” papers of Josh Willis were published, since his scientific work was sound. It turned out the data from two generations of ocean sensors had different systemic errors, and that the ocean was really heating up, but there is no “cabal of warmists” who are stifling scientific debate. Most of the “objections” are just rubbish that have been heard, and proven wrong, and heard again, for decades. The type of “research” pumped out by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, who pay “scientists for hire” to argue against global warming using whatever nonsense approach they can think of, like Baliunas and Soon, two Harvard astrophysicists who might actually shed light on solar activity, but instead publish rubbish about climate models they have no clue about.
Does your friend try to get “raw data” from the Large Hadron Collider, or from the Keppler mission searching for Earth-like planets around 145,000 main-sequence stars ? Or from NIH cancer studies ? How about some “raw data” from the Human Genome project, or the ITER fusion project ?
Scientists *love* to stay late at the office supplying random people from the tax-paying public reams and reams of raw data…
My advice to you: follow the Arctic Ocean ice sheet every summer (2d extent and thickness) – in the next decade, until you have your “Eureka” moment.
Jan 4th, 2010 (6:44 am)All they need to do is build a better mousetrap. That’s my definition of Volt.
Jan 4th, 2010 (11:24 am)Statik, I gotta say it again. Man, do you deliver power house articles. Really good article. Well written and delivered. Thanks.
Jan 4th, 2010 (11:31 am)Rearranging the deck chairs……………………..