That said, I kind of hope that GM blows it SO BADLY with this bailout that congress and the house thinks twice before giving more money away. I mean, is it too much to ask to see GM executives all walk away, splitting the 17 odd billion amoungst themselves and retiring to a nice, non extradition, carribean paradise? Just to rub congress’ nose in it? I mean sure, its gonna hurt taxpayers, but maybe that would cause enough of a hemorrage in congress to maybe think about slapping a tournaquette on it?

no, im not really kidding

No, but your sentence implies you believe most lack “a sense of duty and responsibility”.

K:”No matter how many names you cite I stand by my first remarks.”

You can stand by them all day long. Based on what you’ve written, I don’t think you know very much about corporate leaders. My only desire is that other readers will realize your denigration of corporate leaders in general is not based on any facts, and will not take those remarks seriously.

Warren was referring to a restructuring plan – a contingency restructuring plan to emerge from or to prevent bankruptcy. The words of GM president Fritz Henderson above confirms that Warren was correct.

K: “Is your problem with “indefinitely”? It doesn’t mean forever”

No, bright guy. It doesn’t mean forever. The most common usage is:

“not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited”

When most people use it as you did (“seemed possible to operate indefinitely”) they are meaning “for a a long period”.

K: “Since GM is still operating today, several months after October, I think they have operated indefinitely.”

You are now trying to claim you implied a less common usage of the word. Fine. Please do not in the future expect to be understood if you use less common word usage without providing explanation.

I think GM is only operating today because their creditors know they will soon receive a government bailout. Even without the severe economic downturn and the bailout, GM was going to either shrink significantly or else fail altogether, IMO.

Will you cite evidence that before September it did not seem possible to operate indefinitely?

And you conveniently chose to overlook this part of my comment about GM: “And given another year or so there was some chance to adjust. But they didn’t get that year.”

About the cash flow at GM: Do you contend that sales and economic conditions did not greatly worsen in October? Or do you argue the conditions worsened but that did not greatly shorten the time GM could operate? Two simple questions.

As to our leaders in general: First I didn’t single out business as you imply. IMO the fields of politics and academics have a worse record. And I didn’t say every business leader was the same, so your dishonest attempt to put such words in my mouth is clear.

No matter how many names you cite I stand by my first remarks.

While I’d appreciate getting our money back, I see this as the worst possible combination of moves by the government. If we assume Fiat would be a better steward of Chrysler’s assets, or that Chrysler-as-part-of-Fiat has a far better shot at real profitability, it seems to me the government should promote conditions that attract suitors.

If the feds were outright offering taxpayer funds to profitable (foreign) automakers as “cash back” on the purchase of a debt-ridden (domestic) company, at least that would be rewarding the worthy.

But if the strategy is “establish a condition that attracts potential suitors, then threaten to retroactively penalize suitors if a deal actually happens”…what exactly is the goal state?

K,

Follow the link Warren provided. GM had a negative cash flow of $7.5 billion in 3Q2008 – that’s July through September – before the “severe economic downturn in October”.

How would GM have been able to oeprate indefinitely if it was burning $2.5 billion cash each month?

K: “A sense of duty and responsibility is not what comes to mind when describing today’s leaders”

How many business leaders do you know, K? What do you know about the sense of duty and responsibility possessed by FedEx’s Fred Smith? by Southwest Airlines’ Gary Kelly? by Apple’s Steve Jobs? by Berkshire Hathway’s Warren Buffet? by Starbucks’ Howard Schultz? by Proctor & Gamble’s A. G. Lafley?

I could list dozens of large company CEO’s who have demonstrated over and over again a clear and unwavering sense of responsibility. You could, too, if you did a little research before you made statements denigrating our corporate leaders.

The collapse began with the severe economic downturn in October. Before that the economy and sales were very poor but it seemed possible to operate indefinitely.

And given another year or so there was some chance to adjust. But they didn’t get that year.

Having said that, I concede that GM management has failed. For decades they repeatedly opted for short term rewards. In chess that is called the Fools Mate.

That attitude is hardly unique to GM managers and directors. A sense of duty and responsibility is not what comes to mind when describing today’s leaders whether they be in business or government or pulpits.