American Auto Makers (phony) Decleration of Independence

I don't think I'm alone here. I'm skeptical of these reports and I'm disappointed by the lack of coverage. Articles like this are plentiful. They tell us the White House is pleased to inform us about our "investment" in General Motors and gives us reason for new faith.

They are quick to point out that the hypocritical Republican Party came up with this whole bailout idea in the first place and it is quite strange how they are so morally against big government now that they are no longer in power. And of course, I think this is pure comedy gold. Seriously. Dear GOP: WTF?

Questions left unanswered are, why are the neo-Keynes trumping their horns as though the debt is returned in full? Numbers seem to indicate to me, less than 13% of the loan is returned. But what is with the misleading headlines?

I also have bigger questions. Such as, where is this money coming from? Is GM selling cars, making a profit and repaying their loans in gold bars? Is the man behind the curtain manipulating the money and paying off its loans with prospective stock options?

Most importantly, am I the only one who cringes when Mr. Ed Whitacre talks about a company all Americans can be proud of? Because it creeps me out.



Of course, there are answers to these questions floating around the internet. My friend half jokingly suggested that he would condone the act of robbing liquor stores in Detroit to pay back the loans. Today, he admitted that he might not be far from the truth and gave me this link.

If GM is truly using taxpayer dollars to pay back taxpayer loans, why isn't this information more prevalent in new media? Why isn't this news story all over the front of the New York Times, LA Times, Wall-street Journal and every alternative newspaper in the country? Because it seems pretty freaking important to me.

I guess it's lost somewhere in la-la land along with the wars.

our money where his mouth is

have you seen the controversial gm commercial with ed whitacre?



people don't like that gm chose the ceo as the face of the ad when people are distrustful of people in suits now more than ever. to me, the controversial part is where whitacre says we're putting our money where our mouth is. politics aside, there are more problems with the ad.

vp & social media lead at razorfish shiv singh offers some insight into gm his blog that you might not get anywhere else. basically, that gm is missing an opportunity to start dialogue.

the problem is, how does gm regain america's trust after going bankrupt? the question of whether or not gm has any hope of turning over a profit is certainly subject for hot conversation. how do we divert the conversation back to cars? more specifically, how do we divert the conversation away from politics and onto something that will encourage consumers to buy cars?

pj orourke (take him or leave him) says in the wallstreet journal:

The American automobile is —that is, was— never a product of Japanese-style industrialism. America’s steel, coal, beer, beaver pelts and PCs may have come from our business plutocracy, but American cars have been manufactured mostly by romantic fools.

many have suggested, america's love affair with the car is over. i think this metaphor might be a bit unfair. i think america's relationship to the car is listed as 'its complicated' on facebook but it certainly is not over.

the problem with witacre's ad is that he fails to acknowledge the rift in the relationship. i don't expect him to get down on his hands and knees and beg, such as the entirety of the reinvention campaign, because that would look desperate.