Tuesday, June 7, 2011

The World According to GM

Dan Akerson, CEO of GM had many things to say in his interview with Detroit News, published this morning. Naturally, none of them will likely endear him to you as they nearly turned my stomach. A few key points:

  • The governments bailout of GM is "beginning to wear" on him and his company. He likens the billions of dollars and oversight the government has "pushed" on his company to a visit from the in-laws that has gone on too long.
  • He's worried that government ownership of GM is driving his stock prices down. However he refused to state whether GM would actually buy back that stock from the government, paying the taxpayer back, but not to worry, because "[they] have a lot of cash." Even if they were to buy back that stock, at its current price, the bailout will still have lost over $12 billion.
  • Also, don't worry about judging whether the bailout was a good thing or not. He's got you covered. "We are in the midst of transforming an iconic American company so 20 and 30 years from now (taxpayers) will look at this company and they'll say, 'Absolutely it was the right thing to do." We shouldn't evaluate the bailout on economic returns, because this was an "icon" we were saving. "It's a good feel good story."
  • He thinks government can still do more for him and his by raising federal gas taxes. That will force consumers to purchase new and more efficient vehicles, providing economic incentive for his company to provide those same cars, without forcing them to with economic penalties. "You know what I'd rather have them do — this will make my Republican friends puke — as gas is going to go down here now, we ought to just slap a 50-cent or a dollar tax on a gallon of gas," Akerson said. "People will start buying more Cruzes and the will start buying less Suburbans."
So there you have it, folks. I kind of just want to throw this guy in the Detroit River and see if anyone would even think of saving him. Anyone with me?

2 comments:

  1. I would suspect no court would think it reasonable to assume he WOULD be saved, so it'd be a murder charge. Might still be worth it ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. In that case, I might argue justifiable homicide. Besides, he can always try to swim out.

    ReplyDelete