What's Good For GM is Good For America
The current great auto debate finds me remembering the above often referenced misquote by one Charles Erwin Wilson, former CEO of GM and later Defense Secretary for Eisenhower.
Due to his reluctance to sell $2.5 of his GM stock, that's real money in those days folks, some legitimate conflict of interest questions were raised during his confirmation hearing. The answer to the question of whether he could make a decision as Defense Secretary that could adversely affect GM is where the misquote is rooted. He answered that yes in fact he could, but couldn't conceive a situation where that might be the case explaining ...
"because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa."
Not exactly the same thing, or even close. The misquote fits the liberal anti-capitalist narrative of profit over patriotism, prevalent even then apparently, but the actual quote, ironically enough, has a more we're-all-in-this--together vibe.
This time what's good for GM, and the other big 2, is in fact what is good for America - - specifically chapter 11. It accomplishes everything needed; insures their survival, compels necessary restructuring, doesn't pilfer the treasury, and saves jobs. All good.
Problem is the necessary restructuring will necessarily restructure those jobs, which in turn will weaken big labor, which explains why it won't happen. Big labor ponied up nearly $450 million to get Democrats elected, guaranteeing that what's good for unions is good for Democrats.
With enough political capital to pretend they are reluctant but majorities to ram it through when the time comes, you can bet the farm that however this shakes out the unions will come out comparatively unscathed. That, s the safest bet going. Take it to the bank, on second thought, just put it under your mattress where it's safe.
Due to his reluctance to sell $2.5 of his GM stock, that's real money in those days folks, some legitimate conflict of interest questions were raised during his confirmation hearing. The answer to the question of whether he could make a decision as Defense Secretary that could adversely affect GM is where the misquote is rooted. He answered that yes in fact he could, but couldn't conceive a situation where that might be the case explaining ...
"because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa."
Not exactly the same thing, or even close. The misquote fits the liberal anti-capitalist narrative of profit over patriotism, prevalent even then apparently, but the actual quote, ironically enough, has a more we're-all-in-this--together vibe.
This time what's good for GM, and the other big 2, is in fact what is good for America - - specifically chapter 11. It accomplishes everything needed; insures their survival, compels necessary restructuring, doesn't pilfer the treasury, and saves jobs. All good.
Problem is the necessary restructuring will necessarily restructure those jobs, which in turn will weaken big labor, which explains why it won't happen. Big labor ponied up nearly $450 million to get Democrats elected, guaranteeing that what's good for unions is good for Democrats.
With enough political capital to pretend they are reluctant but majorities to ram it through when the time comes, you can bet the farm that however this shakes out the unions will come out comparatively unscathed. That, s the safest bet going. Take it to the bank, on second thought, just put it under your mattress where it's safe.
Comments