Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 1:53 AM
Tue Dec 1
59 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/02/08
In other news, I think Ford would have done better if, like Standard Oil, it was run by a half-eaten breakfast.
12/02/08
Yes, he said something dumb, on TV, but ya' know, he probably thinks he's worth it given the superficial impossibility of the job and his subsequent struggles.
12/02/08
Although if he doesn't work out, I'm going to start suspecting that nobody from a defense-contracting-type business is qualified for executive power in the real world. Maybe having the federal government as your main customer screws you up for life, business-judgment-wise.
In that case, my gaze will shift toward Nardelli at Chrysler. And if he doesn't work out, then I imagine all three US automakers will wind up being run by Carlos Ghosn, somehow.
12/02/08
12/02/08
It would be cheaper to fly his corporate jet alone.
I would presume this drive is going to come *before* his salary cut, meaning yes, it's costing Ford more for him to drive than it is to fly. It may be good PR, but it is not good fiscal policy for your executives to be driving long distances to important meetings.
There's a reason we don't all take trains across the country anymore.
12/02/08
Mindset and preparation are everything. I understand the PR implications of the private jets - that should be part of the cost/benefit - but seriously, a long-distance trip followed by an immensely important meeting should be as comfortable and relaxing as possible. Jumping out of a coach seat wedged between two 300 pounders or hopping out of a car after a drive on the Beltway are precursors that are not conducive to performance.
12/02/08
12/02/08
You're approaching this from an economist mindset. You need to think like a pr flack on this one.
12/02/08
Do I? And if I do, what does that say about Americans and their reasoning abilities? Or DEMOCRACY?
12/02/08
If the car execs had used their private plane time to come up with a business plan, they may not have been crucified for their mode of transport. Whoops.
12/02/08
12/02/08
"I think I'm O.K. where I am"
12/02/08
12/02/08
12/02/08
I haven't really seen a gas station for like 6 months now though, so maybe the price of gas has returned to 1950s levels.
12/02/08
12/02/08
12/02/08
Who do you think benefits most from an automaker bailout?
Is it:
a.) CEO's of multinational corporations
b.) Middle-class and lower-class autoworkers
Answer honestly, I'm genuinely curious as to your response.
12/02/08
12/02/08
He'll stop for pizza! So pedestrian! Well, not pedestrian, because he's driving, but, uh...
[www.reuters.com]
12/02/08
12/02/08
12/02/08
12/02/08
That said, I am so anti-saving GM.
12/02/08
God, you touched that thing? Yeah. I hope they paid in cash too. The last time I had real exposure to automakers was during the bond downgrades in 2005, and that was when I gave up on Detroit forever.
12/02/08
Of course, it bears repeating had they paid attn and tried to modernize and listened to those radical crazy environmentalists years ago they may not be in this mess to begin with. (not that that's the only problem/mistake they face, but it's a large piece of the puzzle)
12/02/08
Also, the pensions are currently overfunded and are not at risk. GM can't touch that money.
Not pursuing hybrids and plug-ins earlier was a mistake, and the company has admitted as much. But all of the hand-wringing over EV-1 conveniently forgets that the cars could not have been produced at break-even, let alone a profit at that time and the technology, frankly, sucked and wouldn't have been at all practical to guarantee under a warranty.
Whew. Just sayin'
12/02/08
I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. I'm living it day in and day out. I don't care who gets yelled out or made out to be the bad guy or incompetent by the talking heads. People who lived up to their end of the bargain w/GM, who are now over the age of 65, should be immune to any changes to their benefits or income. Of course, what should be and what is are not always the same. These individuals, on fixed incomes, should be protected.
12/02/08