bout effin time.

maybe i should've sold at friday's close....

So the government can now request that a CEO of a corporation steps down. That doesn't sound good to me.

What a surprise, I knew this was going to happen but I didn't think it would happen so soon.

good maybe now GM will get back on track making cars that sell. If only they would make all the ceo's of all the companies that needed bailouts leave and get in people that wont run their companies into the ground.

I'm not a big fan of government control...
something is wrong when in the land of the free, the government can fire any CEO (even if they haven't received government money).

That's the thing though, do you really think they would have received the money from the government had he not stepped down? They were able to make him do it, I don't like the direction this whole thing is going...

So let the government decide who runs all of the companies?

They got government money months ago under Wagoner, though.

Fritz obviously agreed to something Washington wants that Wagoner would not agree to.

At the risk of some counterpoint...the gov didnt fire Wagoner. GM came to the Gov wanting more taxpayer money and the Gov is setting terms for the basis of further loans. They have already loaned both GM and Chrysler billions and now they are asking for more.

When you or I ask for a loan the bank sets terms we have to meet or we dont get the money. If we blow the terms of the loan and come back to ask for even more chances are we would get nothing. If you or have proven that we mismanage funds we dont get rewarded or a pat on the back and get more funds with a handshake and a smile.
Wagoner has proven he is not making the best decisions so for the Govt to ask for his resignation as condition for doleing out more tax dollars I dont think is unreasonable.
The Govt is also telling Chrysler to pursue a partership with Fiat to give them stability and viability. All of these are conditions to help insure that the companies turn around, survive, maintian as many jobs as possible all in the interest of them being able to repay the loan money. Since this is our tax dollars they are getting that doesnt sound like unreasonable precautions to me.
I think many are over-reacting to many of the things going on. The Govt isnt taking over these companies, they are being the banker to keep them afloat. FDR employed more Govt workers for projects and spent more money than anyone thought possible at the time but thats how he pulled this country out of the great depression...and its probably going to have to happen again this time. Wall Street and the CEOs have proven hands down that heir own greed is far more important to them than this country's economy or the welfare of its people.
I personally think its high time they got called out on what they have been doing for a long time.

If the government is having to give them Billions of dollars to stay afloat then why shouldn't they get to decide who runs it. think of it this way one of your friends asks for $100 to bail himself out of jail. you say sure no problem man and loan him $100 bucks. Then next weekend he asks for $200 to bail him out again. are you going to give him the money with no expectation of him not going to jail again? or do you keep bailing him out until you are so broke you have to steal food to feed your family and wind up in jail next to him. major corporations have proven over the past year all they care about is lining their own pockets with cash. i honestly believe we shouldn't give them a dime but since we are lets make them follow rules and fire the people that got them into the situation. i think i should start a business run it into the ground then ask the government for 200 billion dollars to keep it alive. do you think i have a snowballs chance in hell of actually getting the money???? No i don't and i shouldn't get the money but these companies that keep running them selves into the ground keep asking for more and more. sorry for the rant but this is something that makes me almost as mad as drunk drivers.

I can see that argument, as I don't think they should have seen a dime in the first place. Was this in the contract, that they could hire/fire personnel directly or indirectly? It just seems like a slippery slope to me, the government dictating the way that corporations are run sounds like a bad idea.

The govt. didn't fire anyone in GM. They merely said if you stay no money. If you step down we'll give more money.

Personally I think a manageded bankruptcy should have been in play back in november.

well now its in play crysler has about 30 days worth of money and GM has 60 days. the good thing is the government will cover all warranty's.

Just to quote part of the letter from Wagoner:
Why aren't they asking executives of AIG to "step aside" ? Sure Wagoner might have not run GM in the best way, but at least he wasn't up to mischeif.

They did have the CEO of AIG step aside. The guy that's been in front of congress was the guy who took his place.

I understand that much, but what you're saying is just semantics. The only way GM could stay afloat was to comply with the government firing Wagoner.

I dont have a problem with him being forced out. He inherited an out-dated company and had 8-9 years to fix it. He didn't. He's obviously not a good leader.

If companies are going to be getting bailed out with taxpayer money, I think the government deserves to act on our behalf and require some results.

Yes but at the same time the people who are put in the commitee should have some knowledge how the auto industry works and not some bean counters.

It took a long time to get GM into this mess it's gonna take time to get it out. Their whole idea that the Volt won't make money and will be over priced is totally lame. Of course it will be in the begining but after a couple of years as the tech matures prices will drop. The committe also fails to realize that the Prius was Toyota's loss leader and the development was supplemented with government funding and the tax breaks given to purchase it. They harp on GMs dominance on truck/suv sales but yet they ignore the fact that Toyota sold 1.5 million trucks/suvs last year and on top of that just about all of GMs line (minus hummer)has better mileage ratings. GM isn't going to turn things around over night. Not without some major concessions on legacy costs and current salaries. I didn't realize it but Lutz made more money last year then the top three salary guys at Toyota combined.

From what I understand, it was quite a few people (not the CEO) of AIG who got them started into the shady business. CEO should've put the hammer down, but still...

As for Wagoner, the board of execs would've fired him if he hadn't "stepped aside". So yes, Obama fired him, just not as formal as a boss firing his employee.

The point is, its a dark day in America when the government is making decisions like that. Thats what the board of directors is for. If it was the right decision to let Wagoner go, they should've been the people to make it. If they're not fit to make that kind of decision, then they shouldn't be on the board and/or the company should fail.

I guess I'd argue that it was a darker day in history when CEOs started shady practices that led to this whole mess. Mainly the banking and insurance industries, but the auto industry isn't exactly innocent either.