Goodbye.

Thoughts?

I wish when i got fired, they paid me 20 mil.

Also, Good Riddance.

Poor decision after poor decision.

one step forward into getting rid of the trash

I hate to slap you guys back again, but under Rick Wagoner, GM was on the road to recovery. Unfortunately, with a corporation that had been mismanaged as GM had been for so long, you couldn't change it overnight. The change fairy was just not working fast enough and Rick Wagoner was the first to be shown the door.

It's too bad, too. Under his tenure, GM's core products were changing to more marketable ones. Their build quality was finally on par with those idiotic Japanese cars and in some cases, like the Malibu, better. In conjunction with Bob Lutz, they were bringing exciting product to the masses... a V8 Monte Carlo/Impala, the return of Camaro, the return of a full-size RWD car, the Pontiac G8, the Cobalt SS. It's very unfair to call Wagoner trash. He did his best and unfortunately, it just wasn't good enough for this time frame. What also didn't help was potential customers unable to secure credit to purchase their products either. You all forget the little credit melee we're experiencing?

So long, Rick. It's been fun.

Changing gears, I don't think that Chrysler is going to make it through this one. Seriously. Even a merger with Fiat isn't filling anyone with optimism.

In 1992, he was named GM's chief financial officer, in 1994 he became executive vice president and/or president of North American Operations, and in 1998 he was named president and chief operating officer. He became president and chief executive officer in June 2000 and was elected chairman on May 1, 2003. During his reign, GM shares have plummeted from around $60 in June 2000 to as low as $1.27 in March 2009, a loss of approximately 98%, and GM's share of North American cars sales went from 28.3% to 18.3%.

^ From Wikipedia.

If he hadn't made such poor choices over the past 10 years, he wouldn't need to be "on the road to recovery"

I think his biggest mistakes were focusing so much energy into Hydrogen and killing the EV1

Posted by SoNaive In 1992, he was named GM's chief financial officer, in 1994 he became executive vice president and/or president of North American Operations, and in 1998 he was named president and chief operating officer. He became president and chief executive officer in June 2000 and was elected chairman on May 1, 2003. During his reign, GM shares have plummeted from around $60 in June 2000 to as low as $1.27 in March 2009, a loss of approximately 98%, and GM's share of North American cars sales went from 28.3% to 18.3%. ^ From Wikipedia. If he hadn't made such poor choices over the past 10 years, he wouldn't need to be "on the road to recovery" I think his biggest mistakes were focusing so much energy into Hydrogen and killing the EV1

i think that hydrogen fueled cars are going to be future and that electric cars are going to be a stopgap. As I said, after working in the auto industry, it takes a painfully long time to make model changes. Not making excuses, just saying that a corporate monolith like GM does not move at the speed of light. The seasons move faster than decisions in their boardroom. Also, focusing so much emphasis on trucks and SUV's diluted ANY ability they had to shift production gears. But, since they were making mad profit off of them, would you have been the one to tell the board that you were going to choke the golden goose laying golden eggs? Nay.

Posted by Samurai Changing gears, I don't think that Chrysler is going to make it through this one. Seriously. Even a merger with Fiat isn't filling anyone with optimism.

I agree, which is a shame for the city i live in, because i've read that 40% of our workforce works either directly or indirectly for Chrysler. however a gigantic abandoned Chrysler plant sure would be cool.

We should be focusing on changing over the way we power the nation, and THEN changing the auto industry.

More oil is used to generate electricity, then for cars. Even if we made oil exclusive for gasoline usage, we could vastly extend the amount of time until we run out.

Look at Venezuela, they are like 85% hydroelectric powered, they export their oil. There gasoline is sold at the equivalent to $0.12 American. The US dollar is still worth 2 times the Venezuelan dollar, so they pay six cents a gallon in VUD.

We have the technology. Hydroelectric, Nuclear, Wind Farm, Thermal, Wave, Even decomposing human waste can be used as a fuel source.

But it's the pussies who are worried about one species of fish or ruining "The Beauty of the Landscape" Who are misinformed and misguided.

Wake the fuck up people, it's time to start thinking about yourselves and your future.

Do the Benefits outweigh the Risks? I'd say yes.

Posted by Samurai i think that hydrogen fueled cars are going to be future and that electric cars are going to be a stopgap.

But I thought at one point you're the one who said that hydrogen cars would be impractical do to hydrogen's lack of energy density.

I believe this to have been a forced Political move from the Obama administration.... and PURELY from a political standpoint probably the right one. In a fast sinking economic climate, heat is on the Government to force some action in the auto industry, and a shake up at the top of a company operating on tax money is likely going to appear to the general public as Obama creating change. The way i've read it, Wagoner understands this and accepts it as the right thing to do.

On the flip side, Wagoner also got caught in a terrible case of bad timing. Without rehashing all of the labour/union, legacy costs & stuff that has had an impact on GM's profitability and viability as a company. The last year and a bit of his tenure, which showed possibility of a turn around, was squashed by the identical timing of a major credit crunch which has killed lending...and threw auto sales under the proverbial bus.

to answer Capt Orbit, yes, I did feel that hydrogen fueled cars were a pipe-dream, but after reading about the topic and doing a little recreational research, it is definitely the road we should pursue as an avenue for not just car, but for powerplants as well.

Down to Oddspot, you are dead on in your analysis. This is a purely political maneuver by the administration to attempt to reassure the public that they are trying to do something. At least Wagoner has the good grace, intelligence and style to understand this and accept it. The one last coup de grace for him would be refuse any parting bonuses and depart GM in style.

And finally, back to Vadders' comment... hydroelectricity is an excellent power source BUT your environmental lobby does not like it because you're putting dams on beautiful rivers that are home to 'x' number of species. It's like everyone wants the baby, but no one wants the labor pains. We want cheap, clean renewable energy but no one wants to pay for it. We want to build dams on rivers to give us cheap, free energy, but no one wants it in their backyard... somewhere, sometime, some shit has got to give.

There was a big debate about building an ethanol plant here.

Why make fuel out of corn if there are hungry people in the world with no corn?

How about- build the fucking plant. I want to go for a drive.

Posted by bandi How about- build the fucking plant. I want to go for a drive.

Agreed.

Plus, if corn goes up in price, they will stop feeding it to cows and the quality of our meats will go up.

Posted by Sinister Crayon Agreed. Plus, if corn goes up in price, they will stop feeding it to cows and the quality of our meats will go up.

this has come up in the past... there is not enough farm-able land in North American to even come close to supplying the United States or Canadas fuel requirements.

Oh, I have no doubt you're correct, but if we can get corn prices to rise, I'm all for it.

Better meat AND more driving... sweet

Soon they can put cornfields where the GM factories used to be!

Posted by Samurai And finally, back to Vadders' comment [REDACTED] ... somewhere, sometime, some shit has got to give.

I give you
Atlantropa

I think everyone is expecting One Idea that is going to work and want a solid easy solution. There is none. But if we were to generate a little bit here, little bit there... We are completely divided. Which is where the federal government needs to step in and take charge.

Right now Nuclear is the best we have. The main issue with nuclear is the waste. Until there is a cure for cancer, to keep shoving it into the ground (like we've been doing) isn't going to fly. And even then, there is only so much ground. Ideally burying it into the desert, or melting it in a volcano would be best/safest option. _{(Before I get flamed on nuclear volcanoes...the extreme heat would cause a chemical reaction which would speed up the breakdown of the spent uranium much faster than the half-life of radioactive decay ever could. If the volcano were to erupt, the amount of active radioactive material would be a very small ratio to the rest of the deadly pyroclastic flow and ash. The volcano would kill you long before the radiation would.)}

Cold-Fusion is the generation of the future ... but unless some new breakthrough occurs it is at least 100-200 years away before it would be usable.

Back to renewables:

Improving the current technologies using a combination of all of them; putting all your eggs in one basket is never advisable. Literally Spread the Power.

For the people who have to "suffer" with the "Huge Dam in their backyard", should get the absolute lowest electric rates so they get practically free electricity.

They can sell their houses and move; I'd love to have free electricity even if I had to stare at a Dam everyday.

Umm... is it a god dam?