I read with interest the latest numbers from GM and Ford.  The term of burning money was used when describing just how much was used in retooling for newer fuel efficient cars.  Now the two companies are in Washington, again with their hands out looking for another "taxpayer" gift.  Asking the same taxpayer, who can't afford to purchase one of these new cars or can't get a loan from banks who are still hoarding  (700 billion bailout) of taxpayer money.

It's obvious to me that these companies have not had good leadership at the corporate level from presidents, CFO's, and CEO's who must assume the blame for their financial woes.  In my opinion if they are going to ask the taxpayer for a loan then I think new direction is needed, one that avoids the taxpayer buying into a sinking ship, run by the same crew that apparently can't solve the problem(s). Why keep them? 

The current management of any company looking for taxpayer dollars should not be retained.  In business there are no excusues, only leadership and opportunities.

New management's first task should be a sound business plan before the first penny is handed over.  A new crew that knows what to do in order to fix the leak that is causing the ship to sink.  If this is not done then what are we (the taxpayer) doing  but giving these top company officials a free pass to their perks and salaries while the water in the engine room is reaching the pistons. 

I believe if this was part of the requirement when applying for taxpayer bailouts, we may see a fewer companies stepping up to the tax trough with their hands out. Perhaps we would see more work going into rethinking their current business plan and making what's in place work. 

Maybe even doing what every small business owner across this land must do in hard times, tighten their belts, renegotiate financial obligations and turn salaries in IOU's until the hard times are over.  Maybe this just applies to small business owners. I never understood the following recessionary scenario:

1. The economy contracts with a certain percentage 

2. The result is that our income (lifestyle) contracts accordingly  

3. My $1,000 monthly financial obligation will proof to be too big a nut, but reduced (temporarily) to $600, in line with the economy's contraction, I can keep on paying and sit out the storm, without creating foreclosure or bankruptcy havoc to the system. Why does the economy has a flexibility that is not met by every day life routines? Anyone???

Write comment

Name: Email:  do not notifynotify Website: Title: UBBCode:         -color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge     Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Comments

Add New Search

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.25

3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."