Auto Task Force Led by 31-Year-Old During First Three Months of Existence

Meant to say - the involvement and say that the Fed is having...

The old guys that brought the company down didn't exactly shine.

Maybe a young guy will be able to see past the typical old school "that's just the way it's done, you can't change it" attitude.

Firstwagon, the "old guys" didn't bring down the company. The "old guys" gave the majority of the not so outspoken Americans what they wanted. They wanted rear wheel drive cars, trucks, and SUVs. They wanted powerful cars because unlike Europe we are a pretty spread out nation that is still largely rural. We need something big, comfortable, and safe to haul kids and stuff. I'm not sorry I still adopt the "old school" view, and I don't really care if anyone thinks that is wrong. If it wasn't for governmental involvement in the first place all these car companies would probably be ok. Thanks to CAFE standards and 31 year olds we'll probably all be driving a new Chevy Spark instead of a Tahoe in a few years.

The guy comes across as decent, but I agree that he's not qualified. His appointment is puzzling.

To pinpoint the failings of two separate companies on a few "old guys" is inaccurate. It has taken decades for GM and Chrysler to decay the way they have. No one man brought down the companies. It was a concerted effort on the part of the unions, the government, and a bunch of business men that failed to change their business models enough to adapt to the rapidly changing industry.

This Deese guy is just wrong for the part. And it's a perfect example of how lawyers-turned-politicians fail to make any connection to the real world. What this country needs is a doctor...

November through the third week of January was the Bush administration, so changes were made during the first month of the Obama administration. Which is quite fast, if you look at what happens during presidential transitions. Anyway, the results have been pretty much what was expected, so decisions he made during those months were either reasonable or have been overtaken by events anyway. After seeing Daimler-Benz' management drive the nails into Chrysler's coffin even before the economic collapse began, the worth of middle age and auto industry experience ought to mean little to anybody. Before Chrysler and GM can even think about the type of vehicles they want to build, they need a viable business plan.

Boo - I don't like him because he's backing any plan to give GM/Mopar money. Glad they didn't get some industry caveman though - like say Lutz. At least this guy can speak without referencing the time when "men had to run from flesh-eating lizards to survive."

I think you're forgetting most decisions made in Washington are by people younger than that. Its the Hill staffers that run things and provide the 1-2 page memos for their bosses.

Let's hope he's at least more qualified than the youngsters who were running the Iraqi economy after the US invaded.

he needs to shave.

BGDC, you're really starting to sound bitter and pathetic. You used to have good posts. Let your silly little grudge go and move on with life. Its making less and less sense every single day.

"I'm not sorry I still adopt the "old school" view, and I don't really care if anyone thinks that is wrong. "

I've worked for both... old school business is what's destroying the economy, not the government.

By old school I mean...

-Countless layers of management.

-Endless departments not really connected to others.

-Us vs them style employee/ management relations

-Countless procedures that must be followed because that's the way it is.

-Managers that assume that they are more important the engineers, salesman, designers, etc.

Old school is where you discover a problem with a product but it can't be corrected because it has to go from one boss to his boss to a commitee to an oversite group to another manager and so on. Somewhere along the line, someone will not have time for it and it will never happened.

GM didn't fail because they had the wrong product mix, they failed because even if they sold a million cars a year, they still couldn't make money.

Part of that is the fault of the union but most of it is the cost of maintaining a massive overhead.

Lots of people are dismissing this guy because he's young and he hasn't had decades learning how to work the system.

I think that's exacty what we need. We've all seen what didn't work.

At least he's not a car blogger. (Present company excepted, of course.)

First, you mean the status quo is not how GM should continue to operate? But it's worked so well for them over the last 20 years.

stovt, lighten up, Francis. Lutz is a caveman and the sooner he and his type are gone the better.

It was during the transitional phase from old administration to the new one....I wouldn't read too much into it just yet.

bgdc, every single post related to GM you leave a comment with some extremely childish dig at Lutz. It smacks of desperation and pettiness. Fine, we get it, you don't like him, but he did bring GM some of their best vehicles in modern times. So seriously, its getting old. Let it go.

This guy just isn't qualified at all & his appointment should be a huge embarrassment to the Administration. It's insulting to all of the people that are losing jobs and money over this entire ordeal. They didn't do this with the banks - why do it with the car companies? Just embarrassing & awful...

It's not a surprise. Why should anyone think the Obama people would actually appoint someone who understands private industry, or knows about running any business, or a huge company and industry like auto manufacturing? Since when is that a requirement for a government bureaucrat?

If we actually sent and demanded competent people in Washington who knew the limits of the federal government's power and agreed to abide by them, the country would not be in the mess it's in now.

stov,

I'd say Lutt is the perfect face for everything that has gone wrong in the USA. He exemplifies everything about Detroit and American big business that people all over the world have grown to hate:

oblivious, male, privileged, old, wealthy, arrogant, obtuse, chauvinist, elitist, Caucasian, sheltered, selfish, wasteful and finally loved by the media.

He is a walking, talking caricature of a time that sadly still hasn't passed. If you came across a photo of him in a tuxedo, cigar clenched in his teeth, an impudent grin shining out, would it be a shock to see him holding aloft a cocktail while he literally stood upon a pile of workers? It almost seems like we've seen it... maybe it's just his attitude...

roar,

The government didn't have to put puppets at the head of all the financial firms. The existing heads are already in the governments' pocket. Or maybe I have that backwards... hmmm...

Still struggling with the animosity people are showing toward the government. They're not mad at the car companies for being failures. they're not annoyed that the car company execs are walking away with millions. It's not annoying that the car companies begged for money from the taxpayers (as if we owe them something). No what chaps people is that the government gave the car companies cash in exchange for ownership and control. Why is that so egregious?

I can understand not liking that the government is wasting money on a failing industry but why is this also levied at the government guiding an already failed batch of companies? GM has been losing cash and market for over a decade. They already failed. If the government steps in and finishes the job what harm is there? (other than wasting taxpayer dollars) GM already failed. The ever wasteful government is just attempting to turn around a doomed company. We know the people who were in charge of GM were failures. The new guys may be too but it's not like GM had many options... integrity and go under or sell out and take it from uncle sam.

"JUST wasting taxpayer dollars"?!? If you're fine with other people spending your money, then I have a few things I'd like to buy. I'll give you my address and full name so you know where to send the blank check.

There's no telling if GM would actually die if they entered Chapter 11. If there's one thing I hate, it's that people lump everyone who has SIMILAR sentiments together and smack a label on their foreheads. I, unlike others on this blog that want GM to go into Ch 11, don't want GM to die. I want a strong American auto industry. But if that means that the government is going to use some unauthorized powers in order to spend MY money to make it happen, then no thanks.

Entrepreneurism is about taking risks. Even established companies take risks. GM took risks. They should also be facing the consequences for poor decisions relating to those risks. The Constitution explicitly calls for Bankruptcy to be an option that is controlled by Congress. Do you know what happened to debtors before things like bankruptcy were common law? They were enslaved. Even in pre-USA America debtors were imprisoned. GM is a debtor. They deserve bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is the only legal way out of their mess. No matter what Obama or anyone in his administration (or in his pocket) say, the president has no authority to do anything concerning a failing company.

Tough beans, man.

"it seems as though the administration could have found a slightly more qualified person"

Contrary, I'm glad they got this guy. I'd much rather Detroit figure out their own problems than have some "expert" from Washington making all the decisions. He's perfect for the position.

Bluedotguy, our constitution puts clear and well defined limits on the power and roles of the federal government. We are not supposed to have a national government - it is supposed to be a federalist one, where it recognizes the autonomy of individual states. Unfortunately, too many Americans don't even understand this or care about it. They vote for trading freedom away for a few more scraps from politicians, who confiscate money from the people who produce it.

Politicians and bureaucrats then use that money in ways it was never intended, such as buying votes and favors. And when they can't suck any more money from taxpayers, they steal it from future generations, and counterfeit it by printing more and more of it when it's not backed by any increased productivity. What's the real value of our dollar then - this is why it's dropping.

This is why there's a lot of anger towards governmental policies. GM and Chrysler should never have gone to the government for a bailout, and the government should have let them go bankrupt. What we're seeing now is just one of the reasons. Only now are they going into bankruptcy, after they've taken tens of billions of supposed taxpayer dollars, which don't really exist. But now the government has a big foot in the door, where they can dictate how they run their business. It's as if that's what the General Secretary wanted all along.

Nationalization of a private industry is what we've seen happen in places like Venezuela, and was never intended by our founders for some very good reasons. Constant interference by the government in private business is one of the factors that has caused the downfall of the our American auto industry. It's certainly not the only one, but it's a big contributor in addition to the long term strategic mistakes that were made and the unions' politically supported ability to extort more and more benefits out of the companies they worked for that were unsustainable.

And it's not just GM and Chrysler that are broke - our federal government has been broke for years, and has made the same kind of promises of benefits to current and future generations that are unsustainable.

Things like this are just a further leap down the cliff toward the destruction of the country, which many seem only too happy to throw away. What we lose today, we will likely never get back. It's human nature to never give up power or control once a person or entity has it.

Individual liberty is the reason why the US has been quite prosperous for over two centuries, even with some bumps and dips along the way. This one sure is a big one. Of course, I hope that we can turn it around at some point by wising up and getting rid of the people in Washington that are continuing to make it worse. Obama is implementing more of the same failed monetary policies of the past, only they're on steroids this time. Like if we only spend ourselves further into debt, we'll spend enough to get out of it??? Makes no sense.

cwc,

I agree with everything you posted. But I'm a fan of super small government that's more like something locke envisioned than the giant nanny state Bush and Obama have transformed us into(personally believe it all started to fall apart during roosevelt's administration and the creation of such things as social security).

Did anyone read the linked NY Times article?

“Brian grasps both the economics and the politics about as quickly as I’ve seen anyone do this,” said Lawrence H. Summers, the head of the National Economic Council who is not known for being patient whenever he believes an analysis is sub-par — or disagrees with his own. “And there he was in the Roosevelt Room, speaking up vigorously to make the point that the costs we were going to incur giving Fiat a chance were no greater than some of the hidden costs of liquidation.”

Larry Summers is one of the most brilliant economists of his generation (tenured Harvard professor at age 28), and he vouches for Deese. That's a better indication of this guy's fitness for the position than whatever's on his resume.

-JS