Is GM 'more dangerous to America’s future' than any other company?

Imagine our shock when we read yesterday that GM is “more dangerous to America’s future” than any other company, is “like a crack dealer” addicting helpless Americans to SUVs, and is in a cabal with Ford and DaimlerChrysler to buy votes in Congress.

These weren’t the rantings of some obscure, clueless blogger. These were the thoughts of Thomas L. Friedman, (subscription required) author and influential columnist, on the op/ed page of The New York Times.

Mr. Friedman is not normally known for such shrill hyperbole. In fact, he’s generally well-respected and known for presenting rational, fact-supported opinions

Full article here



dblo7dblo7 - 6/1/2006 6:15:59 PM
+1 Boost
I think I was more in shock when I saw the Saleen plate on a Camero! The US needs a strong Auto industry to help the economy. Making cars/trucks is much more then the finished product, but a mixture of materials from across the nation needed to make the cars/trucks (Synergistic!). I am still disappointed that is took Daimler to turn around Chrsyler. No more true Big 3 :(


MercBasherMercBasher - 6/1/2006 10:21:53 PM
+1 Boost
Well there's an element of truth to the article, GM has focused on trucks - and has underinvested in cars. For those who want to buy a world-class car from an American brand, there are slim pickings at GM.

GM appears to have spent more time fighting an increase in Government mandated fuel efficiency standards than actually engineering GM vehicles to be world-class.

There's a reason Toyota is doing well - it has a great line of fuel efficient vehicles, well made at a good price. GM has new trucks. Advantage Toyota!


mkk21mkk21 - 6/2/2006 12:46:00 PM
+1 Boost
Of course GM has the most vehicles that provide 30 miles to the gallon than any other car manufacturer. It's because they have like a million different vehicles. Actually I did look on their website and found 81 vehicles (counted a 2 door and 4 door of the same make as two vehicles) of which only 19 get 30 mpg. That's like 23% of their fleet. While Toyota Motor true has less at around 12, but that's like closer to 41% of their fleet. I think you should consider percentages more. It's like comparing a 300 pound fat person losing 60 pounds vs. 150 pound person losing 30 pounds. It sounds so much more amazing hearing a person lost 60 pounds but that's only like 20% of their original weight. While the other person lost less he's lost almost 30% of his original weight which is actually much more amazing.


SteveLSteveL - 6/2/2006 1:07:36 PM
+1 Boost
Mr. Friedman is a farleft wing nut. It is as simple and as complicated as that.
If nobody has noticed, bashing American Auto Makers especially GM has become one of the intricate parts of being a far left wing liberal. They see GM as one of the things that are wrong with the US. They try to hype up the foreign auto companies because they see those counties as better than the US, with there socialist programs and views.
Mr. Friedman and other Far Left Liberals do not have a clue about what GM is doing and frankly they don’t care. They want GM and other companies like GM to go out of business so they can sit there and say “see, the foreign auto makers do a better job because of the government programs set into place”
It does not surprise me at all to read something like this in the New York Times. They have the same agenda as Mr. Friedman. These people belong to the “Hate America” crowd and they do not want any American company to prosper.

Steve
Oregon


MercBasherMercBasher - 6/2/2006 2:04:02 PM
+1 Boost
Steve sounds like you prefer free-markets to Government intervention and I'm with you on that point. However I disagree with on the merits of GM bashing - I think its right to draw attention to the appalling mismanagement at GM (design of vehicle interiors, brand confusion, proliferation of mediocre vehicles, rather than a few really good ones, etc.etc.)

I would rather expend energy hoping for the executive team at GM to resign [or to that the GM Board will stand up to the GM executive team and fire it] than worry about alleged nutcases in the press.




PlanoA4PlanoA4 - 6/2/2006 2:09:41 PM
+1 Boost
GM's problems are many but in my opinion biggest 3 problems are:

1. The under investment in relevant future technologies. IE: No Diesels or Hybrids in the major sellers but hey we have a hydrogen powered protoype! Last time I looked I haven’t seen too many hydrogen stations in my area. But there are a lot of diesel stations and electrical plugs around here.

2. HUGE legacy costs. How many large companies outside that industry that pays 100% of all insurance cost for current and retired employees? The Union is a cancer to them, and willing to take them down to the mat rather than work together.

3. LEADERSHIP!!!! This may be the answer to number. The decisions of leaders in the heydays to pay dividends to stockholders rather than invest back into the company. This is business 101. Invest back into the company!



SteveLSteveL - 6/2/2006 2:55:54 PM
+1 Boost
Basher
I agree with you somewhat. We can talk about GM’s problems all day long and there is a lot to talk about. But when ignorant people go out of their way to spread lies that’s called bashing and that’s what Mr. Friedman and people like him do. Nobody should be able to put a story in a newspaper that has lies and be able to get a way with it. That’s called slander and GM should sue him and the New York Times.

Steve



lewissalemlewissalem - 6/2/2006 3:55:25 PM
+1 Boost
The Times is crap. They are socialist idiots that want to turn this country into France.


HyundaiHyundai - 6/5/2006 1:10:10 PM
+1 Boost
Rupert,

I know you mentioned Renault in the same breath as Opel and Vauxhall. Renault owns Nissan so it really has nothing to do with GM. From what I understand, you were implying that GM owns Renault. Maybe I misunderstood?


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC