Michael Moore: Kill GM!

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,776
31
81
Monday, June 1st, 2009
Goodbye, GM ...by Michael Moore

I write this on the morning of the end of the once-mighty General Motors. By high noon, the President of the United States will have made it official: General Motors, as we know it, has been totaled.

As I sit here in GM's birthplace, Flint, Michigan, I am surrounded by friends and family who are filled with anxiety about what will happen to them and to the town. Forty percent of the homes and businesses in the city have been abandoned. Imagine what it would be like if you lived in a city where almost every other house is empty. What would be your state of mind?

It is with sad irony that the company which invented "planned obsolescence" -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete. It refused to build automobiles that the public wanted, cars that got great gas mileage, were as safe as they could be, and were exceedingly comfortable to drive. Oh -- and that wouldn't start falling apart after two years. GM stubbornly fought environmental and safety regulations. Its executives arrogantly ignored the "inferior" Japanese and German cars, cars which would become the gold standard for automobile buyers. And it was hell-bent on punishing its unionized workforce, lopping off thousands of workers for no good reason other than to "improve" the short-term bottom line of the corporation. Beginning in the 1980s, when GM was posting record profits, it moved countless jobs to Mexico and elsewhere, thus destroying the lives of tens of thousands of hard-working Americans. The glaring stupidity of this policy was that, when they eliminated the income of so many middle class families, who did they think was going to be able to afford to buy their cars? History will record this blunder in the same way it now writes about the French building the Maginot Line or how the Romans cluelessly poisoned their own water system with lethal lead in its pipes.

So here we are at the deathbed of General Motors. The company's body not yet cold, and I find myself filled with -- dare I say it -- joy. It is not the joy of revenge against a corporation that ruined my hometown and brought misery, divorce, alcoholism, homelessness, physical and mental debilitation, and drug addiction to the people I grew up with. Nor do I, obviously, claim any joy in knowing that 21,000 more GM workers will be told that they, too, are without a job.

But you and I and the rest of America now own a car company! I know, I know -- who on earth wants to run a car company? Who among us wants $50 billion of our tax dollars thrown down the rat hole of still trying to save GM? Let's be clear about this: The only way to save GM is to kill GM. Saving our precious industrial infrastructure, though, is another matter and must be a top priority. If we allow the shutting down and tearing down of our auto plants, we will sorely wish we still had them when we realize that those factories could have built the alternative energy systems we now desperately need. And when we realize that the best way to transport ourselves is on light rail and bullet trains and cleaner buses, how will we do this if we've allowed our industrial capacity and its skilled workforce to disappear?

Thus, as GM is "reorganized" by the federal government and the bankruptcy court, here is the plan I am asking President Obama to implement for the good of the workers, the GM communities, and the nation as a whole. Twenty years ago when I made "Roger & Me," I tried to warn people about what was ahead for General Motors. Had the power structure and the punditocracy listened, maybe much of this could have been avoided. Based on my track record, I request an honest and sincere consideration of the following suggestions:

1. Just as President Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the President must tell the nation that we are at war and we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices. Within months in Flint in 1942, GM halted all car production and immediately used the assembly lines to build planes, tanks and machine guns. The conversion took no time at all. Everyone pitched in. The fascists were defeated.

We are now in a different kind of war -- a war that we have conducted against the ecosystem and has been conducted by our very own corporate leaders. This current war has two fronts. One is headquartered in Detroit. The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps. The things we call "cars" may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature. To continue to build them would only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet.

The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline.

President Obama, now that he has taken control of GM, needs to convert the factories to new and needed uses immediately.

2. Don't put another $30 billion into the coffers of GM to build cars. Instead, use that money to keep the current workforce -- and most of those who have been laid off -- employed so that they can build the new modes of 21st century transportation. Let them start the conversion work now.

3. Announce that we will have bullet trains criss-crossing this country in the next five years. Japan is celebrating the 45th anniversary of its first bullet train this year. Now they have dozens of them. Average speed: 165 mph. Average time a train is late: under 30 seconds. They have had these high speed trains for nearly five decades -- and we don't even have one! The fact that the technology already exists for us to go from New York to L.A. in 17 hours by train, and that we haven't used it, is criminal. Let's hire the unemployed to build the new high speed lines all over the country. Chicago to Detroit in less than two hours. Miami to DC in under 7 hours. Denver to Dallas in five and a half. This can be done and done now.

4. Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities. Build those trains in the GM factories. And hire local people everywhere to install and run this system.

5. For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, have the GM plants produce energy efficient clean buses.

6. For the time being, have some factories build hybrid or all-electric cars (and batteries). It will take a few years for people to get used to the new ways to transport ourselves, so if we're going to have automobiles, let's have kinder, gentler ones. We can be building these next month (do not believe anyone who tells you it will take years to retool the factories -- that simply isn't true).

7. Transform some of the empty GM factories to facilities that build windmills, solar panels and other means of alternate forms of energy. We need tens of millions of solar panels right now. And there is an eager and skilled workforce who can build them.

8. Provide tax incentives for those who travel by hybrid car or bus or train. Also, credits for those who convert their home to alternative energy.

9. To help pay for this, impose a two-dollar tax on every gallon of gasoline. This will get people to switch to more energy saving cars or to use the new rail lines and rail cars the former autoworkers have built for them.

Well, that's a start. Please, please, please don't save GM so that a smaller version of it will simply do nothing more than build Chevys or Cadillacs. This is not a long-term solution. Don't throw bad money into a company whose tailpipe is malfunctioning, causing a strange odor to fill the car.

100 years ago this year, the founders of General Motors convinced the world to give up their horses and saddles and buggy whips to try a new form of transportation. Now it is time for us to say goodbye to the internal combustion engine. It seemed to serve us well for so long. We enjoyed the car hops at the A&W. We made out in the front -- and the back -- seat. We watched movies on large outdoor screens, went to the races at NASCAR tracks across the country, and saw the Pacific Ocean for the first time through the window down Hwy. 1. And now it's over. It's a new day and a new century. The President -- and the UAW -- must seize this moment and create a big batch of lemonade from this very sour and sad lemon.

Yesterday, the last surviving person from the Titanic disaster passed away. She escaped certain death that night and went on to live another 97 years.

So can we survive our own Titanic in all the Flint Michigans of this country. 60% of GM is ours. I think we can do a better job.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Source
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,776
31
81
I agreed with this statement at least: "It is with sad irony that the company which invented "planned obsolescence" -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete."

He kind of lost me after that.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
10
0
For the first couple paragraphs, it looked like Moore actually had the right idea... and then he took a dive into nutcase land.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
For the first couple paragraphs, it looked like Moore actually had the right idea... and then he took a dive into nutcase land.

Well 9 is also correct.

You want people to get better cars/trucks and take mass trans, make gas $4+ a gallon again.

Here in DC the Metro was full of people and they were breaking records when gas was high. Saw less trucks/suvs in the road. More smaller cars and motorcycles.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,391
8,173
126
About the only thing in that article that really makes sense to me is high gas taxes. And I offer that as an alterative to govt. mandated CAFE standards. It just leaves the choice back in the hands of the consumer. We vote with our dollars. If we want to afford a particular lifestyle, then we'll pay for it. If we want higher milage cars, then our sales of such will drive more production of them from the manf. Government manadated fuel standards(and safety for that matter) do nothing but take away choices and increase costs.

He does nothing to address the worker half of the problem. GM was losing over $2,000+ in benefits overhead vs. the competition. $2,000 a car pays for a lot of little penny pinching and other shortcomings that they wouldn't have to otherwise compromise for.

And the train thing? Yeh, Japan has about the same geographic size as the state of Montana. He wants a guy that can't seem to get the right number of screws installed in a car or panel gap alligned properly to build a rail that's supposed to support something doing a couple hundred miles an hour across the entire country?


 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,714
164
106
All I can say is Michael Moore is a nutjob. He obviously has sever emotional investment in the destruction of GM.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,672
10,110
136
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
For the first couple paragraphs, it looked like Moore actually had the right idea... and then he took a dive into nutcase land.

Well 9 is also correct.

You want people to get better cars/trucks and take mass trans, make gas $4+ a gallon again.

Here in DC the Metro was full of people and they were breaking records when gas was high. Saw less trucks/suvs in the road. More smaller cars and motorcycles.

and now that gas prices are back down - surprise, the F150 is still the best selling vehicle. people want trucks, plain and simple.

#1 - calling out GM and chrysler and WMD as the ecosystem is absolute bullshit. consider the fact that toyota heavily invested in truck plants and is now having to idle them. he's also butt-hurt about oil companies, despite the fact that most of their profit is derived from diesel and heavier grades of petroleum. oil companies *barely* make make money on gasoline.

#2 - let's build cars people won't buy because the economy is in recession and they don't have the money to do so? that's a great idea. i think moore should be chair of the fed!

#3 - japan is the size of california.

#4 - eh, not a bad idea, but for sparsely populated areas, the car is still the only practical means of transportation.

#5 - buses, while great, are incredibly inconvenient. it takes me a 30 minute drive just to get anywhere useful. bus loops would either take hours to complete, or a fleet of buses would barely carry anyone in order to offer acceptable loop times.

#6 - let's see, GM is in the process of building the volt. perhaps he's heard of it? and exactly how many other manufacturers have series hybrids?

#7 - wind and solar are not economically viable. solar is 30cents per kWh without subsidies. plus there are the other 12 hours of the day. does he really want the government to print MORE money?

#8 - tax incentives are already provided in the form of rebates.

#9 - congress can enact a $2 gas tax, but people will get pissed and those congressmen will promptly be out of a job next election, so it probably won't happen.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,459
855
126
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
For the first couple paragraphs, it looked like Moore actually had the right idea... and then he took a dive into nutcase land.

Well 9 is also correct.

You want people to get better cars/trucks and take mass trans, make gas $4+ a gallon again.

Here in DC the Metro was full of people and they were breaking records when gas was high. Saw less trucks/suvs in the road. More smaller cars and motorcycles.

Same here, and more people car pooling than ever before.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
The glaring stupidity of this policy was that, when they eliminated the income of so many middle class families, who did they think was going to be able to afford to buy their cars?
Epic. What terrible fvcking math, the man is a moron. A business cannot be tenable if it has to rely upon its employees buying what they just made. Duh!
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Otherwise he's just a loud-mouthed blow-hard begging for someone else to change the world for him.

That basically sums up the left-wing movement in its entirety.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,418
8,370
126
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
also, this: the 15 biggest ships in the world equal the pollution output of all 760,000,000 cars on the planet.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/0...st-ships-equal-that-o/

so what is more cost effective? retrofitting container ships with pollution control systems or turning over the whole 760 million car fleet?

gosh, i don't know!



anyway, 17 hours from NY to LA is too long. that's an average of ~165 mph the fastest scheduled rail service, a tgv line, averages 173 mph. so i'm going to guess that moore's 17 hours from LA to NY probably doesn't include stops along the way. and why wouldn't it stop in vegas, denver, omaha, chicago, and cleveland? or kansas city, st. louis, indianapolis, and columbus?



Originally posted by: TehMac

That basically sums up the left-wing movement in its entirety.

i once read an op-ed in the university of texas's student newspaper deploring volunteerism and how it takes away from the real action of activism. why change the world yourself when you can protest the government to do it for you?
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I agreed with this statement at least: "It is with sad irony that the company which invented "planned obsolescence" -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete."

He kind of lost me after that.

Well, unfortunately, that's a false view of "planned obsolescence".

What GM referred to when they spoke of "planned obsolescence" was not building, "cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one", but rather introducing trivial updates each model year to make older cars appear unfashionable or outdated. It had nothing to do with making cars that were unreliable, but rather it had to do with rationing advances in conveniences or styling to ensure that there was always at least some small update to new models that would differentiate them, usually visually, from the previous year's offerings.

Interestingly, this second, more accurate, description of planned obsolescence is currently used by Porsche to great success. Porsche's history is littered with mid-year updates and small tweaks at apparently random intervals all aimed at maintaining the perception that new Porsche is always superior in some way to an older model.

ZV
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,714
164
106
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I agreed with this statement at least: "It is with sad irony that the company which invented "planned obsolescence" -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete."

He kind of lost me after that.

Well, unfortunately, that's a false view of "planned obsolescence".

What GM referred to when they spoke of "planned obsolescence" was not building, "cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one", but rather introducing trivial updates each model year to make older cars appear unfashionable or outdated. It had nothing to do with making cars that were unreliable, but rather it had to do with rationing advances in conveniences or styling to ensure that there was always at least some small update to new models that would differentiate them, usually visually, from the previous year's offerings.

Interestingly, this second, more accurate, description of planned obsolescence is currently used by Porsche to great success. Porsche's history is littered with mid-year updates and small tweaks at apparently random intervals all aimed at maintaining the perception that new Porsche is always superior in some way to an older model.

ZV

And Porsche's formula works so well. My boss has a Cayman S from 2008 and he is wanting the 2009 model so much because of the additional HP and PDK (allthough he is a little up in the air on the PDK).
 

IlllI

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2002
4,927
10
81
well i didn't read all that but i dont think the govt should throw 40 billion into gm. what ever happened to survival of the fittest? gm should be responsible for the mess it got itself into. and also, you dont see the govt bailing out small businesses or going out of their way to help them like they did with gm. and where is that money going to come from? taxpayers. yet, will we, the ones paying for this actually get any direct benefit? are we all now going to get a 500 coupon on our next gm purchase or something?
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Typical liberal ranting about fairy tells.

Windmills and solar panels? Seriously? Physics tells us that the energy density is simply not there no matter how much more we advance the technology, yet people still believe in the fairy tale utopia. How much better can you make a solar cell? There are only so many photons per cubic foot of sunlight, and thus only so much energy to be had, and it's not enough to provide for current power needs even if 100% efficient.

When will these loonies accept that?

And proposing arbitrary taxes and government force to mold people into a specific political view... this government intrusion in private choice and will not fly without mass violence ensuing.

This douche bag Michael Moore is just a pompous waste of flesh.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I agreed with this statement at least: "It is with sad irony that the company which invented "planned obsolescence" -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete."

He kind of lost me after that.

Well, unfortunately, that's a false view of "planned obsolescence".

What GM referred to when they spoke of "planned obsolescence" was not building, "cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one", but rather introducing trivial updates each model year to make older cars appear unfashionable or outdated. It had nothing to do with making cars that were unreliable, but rather it had to do with rationing advances in conveniences or styling to ensure that there was always at least some small update to new models that would differentiate them, usually visually, from the previous year's offerings.

Interestingly, this second, more accurate, description of planned obsolescence is currently used by Porsche to great success. Porsche's history is littered with mid-year updates and small tweaks at apparently random intervals all aimed at maintaining the perception that new Porsche is always superior in some way to an older model.

ZV

And Porsche's formula works so well. My boss has a Cayman S from 2008 and he is wanting the 2009 model so much because of the additional HP and PDK (allthough he is a little up in the air on the PDK).

Of course, the flip side is that genuine continuous improvement is difficult to superficially distinguish from planned obsolescence. The argument can be made that it's better to get new engineering into the cars immediately than to wait 3-4 years for a model refresh and, on the whole, "planned obsolescence" generally refers more to the yearly model changes that Detroit used to do in the 40's, 50's, and 60's than to actual engineering changes.

Of course, the counter to this is that an extra 5 hp from a 250 hp engine isn't really a new engineering change and may well simply mean that the older engines were either sandbagging or deliberately underrated.

ZV
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,418
8,370
126
Originally posted by: exdeath
Typical liberal ranting about fairy tells.

Windmills and solar panels? Seriously? Physics tells us that the energy density is simply not there no matter how much more we advance the technology, yet people still believe in the fairy tale utopia. How much better can you make a solar cell? There are only so many photons per cubic foot of sunlight, and thus only so much energy to be had, and it's not enough to provide for current power needs even if 100% efficient.

When will these loonies accept that?

And proposing arbitrary taxes and government force to mold people into a specific political view... this government intrusion in private choice and will not fly without mass violence ensuing.

This douche bag Michael Moore is just a pompous waste of flesh.

from some googling i get the following: about 375 watts per sq. meter hits the earth's surface. or about 375 megawatts per sq. kilometer. as of 2005, the world consumes about 1826 megawatts. in other words the solar energy hitting less than 5 square kilometers could satisfy all of the world's energy needs. that's 1/8th the size of houston intercontinental airport.
 

LostUte

Member
Oct 13, 2005
98
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: exdeath
Typical liberal ranting about fairy tells.

Windmills and solar panels? Seriously? Physics tells us that the energy density is simply not there no matter how much more we advance the technology, yet people still believe in the fairy tale utopia. How much better can you make a solar cell? There are only so many photons per cubic foot of sunlight, and thus only so much energy to be had, and it's not enough to provide for current power needs even if 100% efficient.

When will these loonies accept that?

And proposing arbitrary taxes and government force to mold people into a specific political view... this government intrusion in private choice and will not fly without mass violence ensuing.

This douche bag Michael Moore is just a pompous waste of flesh.

from some googling i get the following: about 375 watts per sq. meter hits the earth's surface. or about 375 megawatts per sq. kilometer. as of 2005, the world consumes about 1826 megawatts. in other words the solar energy hitting less than 5 square kilometers could satisfy all of the world's energy needs. that's 1/8th the size of houston intercontinental airport.

You realize that there are hundreds of power plants that currently output more than 1800 MW, right? I think Three Gorges in China puts out 18,000MW. The rate of worldwide energy use is more on the order of 15TW.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,207
66
91
I'm sure bullet trains will require the same capital investment in a country a little bigger than Japan.


The only thing I agree with is the tax on gas. I guess a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
 

SearchMaster

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2002
7,792
114
106
Well, I vehemently disagree with a tax on gas but agree that would shape behaviors and attitudes (see Europe for example).

And I know it's coming soon enough.