LOL! You REALLY don't know much about me.
<< What does that have to do with anything.>>
I'll explain it to you. First of all these are non voting shares of GM. Secondly, the shares don't belong to the union, they belong to the VEBA. On the VEBA Board there are professional people that don't give a hoot about the union, but who have the responsibility of overseeing the billions of investing power to maximize the funds for health care.
Starting to become clear in the fog?
Unless you want to lose alot of money don't buy GM and don't buy a GM car either. The government will not bail Gm out again when it goes under the second time. If we get a new president there will be a whole new philosophy about the parasites of our nation who have destroyed it The UAW will be very unhappy with our new administration I can assure you. But they put the people we now have in and you know the harm they have done to our country's image and to all of the people out of work.
Sorry to destroy your illusions with facts, but:
<<Feds dictated product line and dealership closures, including the Volt which they now subsidize (nice golf cart).>>
If you would spend a little time researching things you would find numerous references to the Volt in 2007, two years before the bankruptcy.
<<Bankruptcy court orchestrated by the Feds, giving half ownership to union without serious concessions.>>
The UAW VEBA, a different entity than the UAW whose board consists of some very distinguished people. As you will see in the atached, the VEBA received 17.6% of GM stock, not even clse to half.
With these errors in your statements, which are well known to serious people, you are not qualified to participate in this discussion.
Feds dictated product line and dealership closures, including the Volt which they now subsidize (nice golf cart). Bankruptcy court orchestrated by the Feds, giving half ownership to union without serious concessions. Got rid of CEO who didn't toe the party line. Wake up. I'm not saying things would be better without this arrangement, but let's not kid ourselves as to who's calling the shots.
<<<<You're an incorrigible cynic.>>>>
Regarding GM, I might be. But I wasn't when I got here. And certainly nothing GM has done since 2006 has 'corriged' me enough to change that.
<<<<their ties to the government and the UAW and their huge commitment to 500M+ retirees if it isn't just a totally hopeless case, longer term. >>>>>
They don't have 500M retirees....there are only 312M people in the whole USA. It's 500M govt shares and maybe 1M retirees.
Still a lot of dudes to be supporting though.
In 2011, do you think "decent" is enough?
Wouldn't GMs interests be better served with a super star outsider, a free thinker that was better than just "decent"?
I don't know if Akerson is good or no good, but I'm wondering that considering
their ties to the government and the UAW and their huge commitment to 500M+
retirees if it isn't just a totally hopeless case, longer term.
MAllen, you're a little too sensitive and emotional.
I never claimed Akerson was the best candidate, but rather that he's certainly reasonable choice under the circumstances. I'm not arguing your argument!
IMHO, this back and forth about the absolute bestest CEO is irrelevant.
The first order priority was to stabilize the patient--which Akerson has largely accomplished--before taking the company to the next level. Whether Akerson is the man for the long term, I don't know. But, I'm confident that GM will survive and perform to the point where I can walk away with a very, very nice profit. (no, I'm not gonna hold a cyclical company like GM forever--this is special situation).