Quote:
Originally Posted by bigearl
That just doesn't make sense. The new GM direction was set by hiring the board.
Let's take the clearest example, the Supreme Court. The current administration looks very carefully for people who see the law as the administration sees it. No, the president can't go in and tell the Supreme Court how to do things, but judicial nomination is considered to be maybe THE most important tool available to Presidents to influence future law.
Now in the GM set up- they chose half the board and approved the other half. The board members were interviewed and vetted. The Government doesn't have to interfere daily, because they chose people who would follow 'the plan'--whatever 'the plan' is. You likely wouldn't see the Treasury exercise the power they have as majority stockholder until the board veered off the current business plan.
The same board members will likely remain for some time after the IPO, so whatever business plan was approved in bankruptcy will be GM's direction for probably the next decade or longer.
|
They were hired because the government felt the board could turn the company around. It is influencing but only to a certain, irrelevant point. Also, as I recall, I said show me evidence of direct influence. Think of it like this...
A President appoints a Supreme Court justice because they share the same views. He feels comfortable that the justice would make decisions that are similar to decisions he would have made. Thus, the only influence was the correct appointment of the justice himself, and after the appointment the justice acted by his own will.
What seems to be the problem is that certain political parties seem to think that Obama is literally telling how many cars to sell and to who. This would be an example of direct influence, however this isn't the case in the new GM.
Indirect influence could be found in any part of the auto industry. Does anyone remember the ex-NHTSA employees that were hired by Toyota to specifically deal with safety issues?