LyrArc Article Gist
Wagoner became President at age 45, CEO at age 48. So you would think that young blood is coming in to GM, but that does not appear to be the case. At the Board level most of the Board members like George Fisher formerly of Motorola, have been around for a long time, and there does not appear to be new blood that would bring in fresh thinking. And serious decisions about investment in developing new technologies to develop fuel efficient cars, like hybrid technologies, electric and other alternative technologies, diesel technology, have been held up for years at General Motors. The way decisions are made on such issues with Board members voicing their opinions more than wrestling seriously with the issues, shows serious shortcomings of management and the Board. At key points of decision making the CEO and key members of his team had not prepared carefully, and Board members did not come up with serious thinking on the problems facing GM. It, appears that the investment in technologies to develop fuel efficient cars much earlier, long before they were finally being addressed in 2006, was a failure of Wagoner's management and of the Board. Management discussed this but continued to be mired in old ways of thinking that continuing with the status quo- cars with existing low fuel efficiency- would not expose GM to illwinds as preferences changed. Its clear from the description here of discussions within GM that the old thinking is quite entrenched at GM, and Wagoner just was not the kind of person who could vigorously articulate a new vision for GM. A couple of things are noteworthy in this account of management indecision at GM. When fuel prices began hurting sales of SUV's and large vehicles in 2005, efforts to get a decision on investments in new technologies for fuel efficiency for the whole product lineup failed at the Board level in an April 2005 meeting. One Board member saying at that meeting, that" do we want to lose another billion dollars in developing new technology for fuel efficient cars." And no one calling him to account that the remark still did not address the point that GM had to respond to the changing market and world oil dynamics, and not just hope for the best, as GM had aggressive competitors, and faced continually diminishing role in the market place for the entire decade of the 1990's. While April 2005 was already at the tail end of the previous era of gas guzzling cars and a decision then would still not have shown a forward looking vision of things, it was not until 10 months later that a decision was reached. And this almost from necessity, as oil prices jumped in 2006 after hurricane Katrina, and by this time President Bush was also calling for higher mandated fuel efficiency standards. The other noteworthy point here is that by making the changes so late in the game, GM had to compress the development cycle for new and some cases unknown technologies into short time frames. If the ingenuity of its engineers comes to its rescue it still faces another hurdle that of cost, because the technologies have to be perfected and improved, so that the costs are low enough for customers, and importantly comparable with what it is costing competitors to make the same fuel efficient technology engine or other part. Which is why one Honda executive remarked, "GM like everyone else is serious about this, because they have to be, but how many of their hybrids and how many Volts will they sell? Their technology is very expensive." Even if GM develops the Volt electric car by 2010, GM will need a whole range of fuel efficient technolgies to power its large product lineup. Its just to hard to avoid the conclusion that this is going to prove costly. All the dragging of feet and indecision, and failure to prepare GM for a different world in case something drastically different from what was expected happened, will prove very costly especially considering how aggressive and well financed some of the Japanese and German competitors are. It also hard to avoid the conclusion that there is too much bureaucracy at the large auto companies, and getting new blood and new ideas and fresh thinking is tough in a place where everybody agrees with everybody else, and there is uniformity of thinking. This makes it difficult for any original or wayward types to thrive. These bureaucracies look up to the top for direction. Initiative is discouraged on one hand, and at the same time even if a new direction is taken at the top. a lot of resistance can be expected to implementing it throughout the company without persistent persuasion and reminder of new facts and realities. This is true for both Wagoner and Mullaly as they face the skepticism of subordinates to new direction. Mullaly for instance has to remind his managers that large vehicles are only a small percentage of the entire global market, and if Toyota is making money in small cars so can Ford. See the link to this. Is Toyota immune from bureaucracy type behaviour throughout the company? Not really, Toyota's chairman emeritus came out of retirement in fact and went out of the way to caution its CEO and management about their complacency a year or so before. Shoichiro Toyoda personally intervened to caution against too much expansion in the US and climbing wage costs, and other risks they perceived such as the company managers in the USA appearing to be resting on their laurels. See the link to this. A lot of discussion is probably going on within these companies about the present state of affairs, and considerable anxiety for what the future will bring. It may be useful to ask the question is there something that makes it difficult for once successful organizations -now with entrenched bureaucracy and set ways -to put forward leaders with vision and foresight, till it becomes very late? The vision and foresight about where their markets and the world is heading, and the ability to move their organizations in that direction. Or to break out of old patterns of behaviour and thinking....

LyrArc Article Gist
Micky Hammon sponsored Alabama's HB 56, Alabama Taxpayer and Citizenship Protection Act, which passed in the legislature in 2011. The illegal immigrants it was said would follow "self-deportation" as the law would require frequent checks by police, and make renting a house or giving a job to an illegal immigrant a crime. The policy would be followed in schools also. At the time Donald Trump is cited by the Washington Post's David Weigel as telling reporter Kessler that the policy was "crazy," and "maniacal."

LyrArc Article Gist
In a new WSJ/NBC New poll, conducted July 24-27, 2009, 42% called the Obama health plan a bad idea, and 36% called it a good idea. In mid June the poll showed Americans evenly divided on this question. It reflects rising anxiety over the costs of the health plan and what it will do to the deficit, and also shows public anxiety about the ways in which Obama and Congress are reaching compromises to pay for it and to control costs. Added to this are the anxieties raised about government involvement in healthcare and medical decisions about care. Noteworthy are two differing pieces of evidence. In the WSJ/NBC News poll, only two in ten people thought the quality of their own care would improve, only 15% of those with private insurance thought that it would improve the quality of their care. And 4 in ten people thought quality of care would get worse, and 45% of those with private insurance thought quality of care would get worse. By focussing on the cost of health care, the administration seems to have ignored or missed the concerns of people about the quality of care if government focussed on cutting costs. These concerns are real as a vast majority of the public, or about 85% of the people, as Martin Feldstein points out in a recent Washington Post column, are insured. The question is what cost would they be willing to pay for the admittedly worthy cause of insuring the uninsured? And even with the unisured, it seems likely with the current Obama reform plan that immigrants and other people may still remain uninsured, at least for some time. Would a huge burden of $1 trillion make this worthwhile, and is there some better way to do this without the prospect of higher taxes further down the road to pay for this. These are points Feldstein makes. The other piece of evidence is that at the same time that there are reservations about what is coming out of Congress today, there is general support for making constructive changes to healthcare. The WSJ poll showed 56% of respondents favoring the basic ideas in the reforms being considered in Congress, with 38% opposing it....

LyrArc Article Gist
Dan Maffei won his Congressional seat from an incumbent Republican from Syracuse. Others of the 35 first term Congressmen represent a rural, small town and suburban areas like Maffei. And they are not about to lose their seats after tough congressional campaigns, they say, by voting the wrong way on health care reform. As one from Maryland put it he is not willing to foloow the lead just to follow the lead. These are the Congressmen that Steny Hoyer, Rep. from Maryland, who leads the Democrats in the House, wants to give more time as this is what they wanted. And these Congressmen are making themselves heard and making changes in the health care legislation where they disagreed.

LyrArc Article Gist
Chuck Hagel on the need to bring in more countries to handle difficult situations such as the one the US faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says thats why the world now has a G20 and not a G8. No country can face these situations alone especially when there is a mutual interest of many countries in these situations. He calls it a 20th century reaction to 21st century realities. He says the 2 wars cost more than a trillion dollars. One sees a new respect for international institutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, and GATT renamed WTO, even with Republicans. Chuck Hagel's point makes a lot of sense and is generally accepted in people's understanding of the situation from the Defence Department to the Administration, and among respected politicians. It is putting it onto practice that is the hard part. As Hagel puts it, it is important to remember what Lyndon Johnson told Senatior Russell, that he knew the Vietnam war could not be won, and yet he did not want to pull out and be the first American President to lose a war. This is a contradiction because if it can't be won its going to be lost under the next President or the one after that, in this case Gerald Ford. Hagel says it not ours to win and lose. Here he points to the interconnectedness and shared interests of all nations. Every great threat to the U.S., whether it is economic, terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy or water and food shortages, is also a threat to global partners ansd rivals. So its wrong to view engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan through the lens that says its about winning or losing. And he asks win what? Too many cultural, ethnic and religious dynamics are involved for any one nation to control. Hagel concludes by saying that the US, the Defense Department, the Obama administration, must get this right, as it affects the global architecture for the next generation. Fresh thinking is needed. Single issue engagement is obsolete in the 21st century in dealing with global partners or rivals, or countries with aspects of both....

LyrArc Article Gist
The employment to population ratio in August 2011 was 58.2%, down from 62.7% in December 2007, according to the Labor Department. For men the ratio is 63.6%, down from 69.4% in 2007 when the recession began. About one percentage point of this is a result of a surge of retirements during this recession period.

LyrArc Article Gist
Mexico's Felipe Calderon cites the achievements during his 6 years in office: the efforts to establish a rule of law state, reduce the influence of drug trafficking gangs, improve higher technical education with 113,000 engineers now graduating each year, generating jobs and economic growth, and reducing the flow of people moving across the border with the U.S. as conditions improve in Mexico.

LyrArc Article Gist
George Will describes the views of Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas on "too-big-to-fail" risks in the U.S. banking system.

LyrArc Article Gist
Landon Thomas Jr. asks the question now on the minds of many bankers in the City of London- did the conditions British prime minister present to the EU leaders at the summit on Dec 9, 2011, help or hurt the City of London and Britain's financial sector? Will the City now have to deal with rules set by the other 26 countries, with Britain's role in their formulation marginalized.