GM Must Re-Make the Mass Transit System it Murdered

By Harvey Wasserman

Bail out General Motors?  The people who murdered our mass transit system?

First let them remake what they destroyed.

GM responded to the 1970s gas crisis by handing over the American market to energy-efficient Toyota and Honda.

GM met the rise of the hybrids with "light trucks."

GM built a small electric car, leased a pilot fleet to consumers who loved it, and then forcibly confiscated and trashed them all.

GM now wants to market a $40,000 electric Volt that looks like a cross between a Hummer and a Cadillac and will do nothing to meet the Solartopian needs of a green-powered Earth.

For this alone, GM's managers should never be allowed to make another car, let alone take our tax money to stay in business.

But there is also a trillion-dollar skeleton in GM's closet.

This is the company that murdered our mass transit system.

The assertion comes from Bradford Snell, a government researcher whose definitive report damning GM has been a vehicular lightening rod since its 1974 debut.  Its attackers and defenders are legion.  But some facts are irrefutable:

In a 1922 memo that will live in infamy, GM President Alfred P. Sloan established a unit aimed at dumping electrified mass transit in favor of gas-burning cars, trucks and buses.

Just one American family in 10 then owned an automobile.  Instead, we loved our 44,000 miles of passenger rail routes managed by 1,200 companies employing 300,000 Americans who ran 15 billion annual trips generating an income of $1 billion.  According to Snell, "virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system."

But GM lost $65 million in 1921.  So Sloan enlisted Standard Oil (now Exxon), Philips Petroleum, glass and rubber companies and an army of financiers and politicians to kill mass transit.

The campaigns varied, as did the economic and technical health of many of the systems themselves.  Some now argue that buses would have transcended many of the rail lines anyway.  More likely, they would have hybridized and complemented each other.

But with a varied arsenal of political and financial subterfuges, GM helped gut the core of America's train and trolley systems. It was the murder of our rail systems that made our "love affair" with the car a tragedy of necessity.

In 1949 a complex federal prosecution for related crimes resulted in an anti-trust fine against GM of a whopping $5000.  For years thereafter GM continued to bury electric rail systems by "bustituting" gas-fired vehicles.

Then came the interstates.  After driving his Allied forces into Berlin on Hitler's Autobahn, Dwight Eisenhower brought home a passion for America's biggest public works project.  Some 40,000 miles of vital eco-systems were eventually paved under.

In habitat destruction, oil addiction, global warming, outright traffic deaths (some 40,000/year and more), ancillary ailments and wars for oil, the automobile embodies the worst ecological catastrophe in human history.

Should current General Motors management be made to pay for the ancient sins of Alfred Sloan?

Since the 1880s, American corporations have claimed human rights under the law. Tasking one now with human responsibilities could set a great precedent.

GM has certainly proved itself unable to make cars that can compete while healing a global-warmed planet.

So let's convert the company's infrastructure to churn out trolley cars, monorails, passenger trains, truly green buses.

FDR forced Detroit to manufacture the tanks, planes and guns that won World War 2 (try buying a 1944 Chevrolet!).  Now let a reinvented GM make the "weapons" to win the climate war and energy independence.

It demands re-tooling and re-training.  But GM's special role in history must now evolve into using its infrastructure to restore the mass transit system---and ecological balance---it has helped destroy.

 

CROSSPOST VIA COMMONDREAMS

Comments

(63)

Ya know....

...I agree that GM made it's bed and should have to take the consequences but....

If GM were to go under it wouldn't be the folks that got them in this mess who'd suffer....

It'd be all those middle class workers who'd lose their jobs that make those cars.....sell those cars...make parts for those cars. In other words a whole shitload of people and with the economy already tanking can we really afford that?

a major overhaul of the US

auto industry is needed.

Step 1. If the pension funds of the employees are not fully funded as they should have been, Any shortfall should be filled with voting shares of company stock. If the company were answerable to the workers, they would think twice before moving jobs off shore. If the Workers have a large stake in profitability they will negotiate whatever contract is needed to achieve it.

Step 2. National health care. Let the industry replace corporate health care by buying into medicare.

Those ideas are great but the first....

....order of business is making the big 3 competitive and those issues you raise don't address that.

Affordable/economical/reliable cars are what they need to be kicking out of detroit. Unfortunately, affordability, doesn't really go hand in hand with improved worker benefits. They're about to go under so I don't think more benefit expenditures are going to come any time soon....if anything we'll be seeing some benefits/wages reduced. I just hope the fat cat executives take a ginormous pay cut.

Talking about fat cats...just read that the president of Ohio State get 1.3M a year....off topic I know but when in the hell did college presidents start pulling in that kind of change?

By SgtDNovember 17, 2008 - 4:58pm

Ohio State probably clears that with the revenues from 1 football game. Talk about skewed priorities, just look at how much the football coach makes.

Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.

True....

....when the FB coach is typically they highest paid state employee something is kind of skewed.

Good points in the long run

though not something that will change the current model year.

affordability v benefits etc. In my idea workers would have a stake in the company beyond the job and since profit equals pay bonuses, you might see them cooperating more, even understanding that if the company goes down, they are done.

In the long run, quality is the number 1 problem there. This comes down to a major shakeup in organization and a rigid enforcement of standards which is lacking throughout the big 3. At the risk of a few bruised egos, somebody has to tell them their product SUCKS. It didn't always. It doesn't have to. It isn't the workers because Toyota has no problem in the close to a million cars a year that they build here. Starting with a rigorous testing of parts BEFORE installation, there needs to be a zero tolerance for defects and a commitment to designing for quality over cost. People will pay more for a better car, Honda and Toyota proved that. In the short run even, increased sales will more than make up for the increase in cost.

Detroits products

are better built and higher quality now than they have ever been. You must not remember the rust bucket land yachts that died after 75,000 miles that they built in the 1960's and 70's.

using that as a given...

assuming that GM and the other captains of the auto industry follow along...

their collective products still fail in just about every useful way (such MPG, handling, comfort, etc...)

I propose we structure that government loan in such a way as to pay the pensions and medical insurance programs...

and leave not one thin dime for the exec salaries, the stock options, the golden parachutes, etc.

I can always hope.

give me lever, and a place to stand...

Advances in technology have improved the breed

across the board. But prior to the mid seventies, the American car was the envy of the world. Japanese cars on those days were crap by comparison. With a few exceptions, European cars were not much better. Even the gas hogs made sense before the first oil crisis in 1973, the problem was, they spoiled the manufacturers. They wanted to keep making the high profit models instead of working on ways to improve profit on the models that made more sense as the world and the market changed.

Actually

I remember a Pontiac station wagon my family owned. They bought it new in 1968, and sold it privately in 1991, with over 120,000 miles on it. It required some significant body work at around the 80,000 mile point due to rust (damn Northeast winters), but it was mechanically very sound.

I happened to see that same Pontiac last week while driving through town. It's still on the road, although the original "metallic mint green" paint has largely been replaced by "Bondo pink". I know it's the same car because of a body repair I helped with; the rivets are still visible on the quarter panel.

With that said, the "program cars" of the 70s did indeed suck. That was a phase of American automotive engineering that is best used as an object lesson.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

The top of the arc

for American cars was 1971. You see the muscle cars from that era every day on shows like Pinks but it is stories like you Pontiac wagon that really tell the tale. The cars were over designed and overbuilt. Those that came off the road, did so because a replacement was cheap and easy, not because they couldn't be repaired. If anybody had thought to galvanize the steel before painting, even more would still be on the road today.

The corps just didn't want to spend any of their huge (at the time) profits on improvements to safety, economy or emmissions because those things were not sexy. The had to be pushed kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Then let's see if the execs at GM just want the money for

their own wallets, or if they really want to save their business.

1. In exchange for the loan money, taxpayers will receive stock equity in the company. GM's repayment of the loan will take the form of buying the shares of stock back from the government.

2. As the government is a major stockholder in the company, it will have significant input into determining the steps needed to bring GM back from the dead, just as any majority shareholder would have.

3. As part of the loan terms, all bonuses for upper management are forbidden. Execs will take pay cuts such that no exec will make more than $500,000 per year until the loan is repaid. Union hourly workers will have their pay cut 10% until the loan is repaid.

If they refuse to accept any and all of the above conditions, they can go down the toilet as far as I am concerned, as it will be proof that they only want the money to enrich themselves, not to save the company.

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

1.2.&3. Full agreement

throw in my provision about the pensions and we are there. If the workers want to make more, let them do it through building their stock back up.

Absolutely. If we keep falling into the same trap

that "they are too big to be allowed to fail", and continually bail out companies for that reason alone, we will not only go broke, (or "broker"?), but will also simply encourage companies to continue the same stupid policies that created this problem in the first place. Why the hell would a company CEO NOT try to game the system if there is no fear of negative consequences?

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

It's kind of a vicious circle....

...because they are, in fact, too big to go down the toilet without pulling a good share of the economy with then AND there are NO repucusions for missmanagement when we bail them out.

Also....I have major reservations on stipulation 2. When has the government ever shown that they are good at managing something? I'm afraid they'll end up making a bigger boondoggle of the industry if thats possible. Regulations I can see....sitting in the boardroom? The gov?

Very scary IMO...

The govt manages

social security and medicare. Those programs work great and are very efficient. The govt is good at managing things under Democrats but not good under Reps.

Social Security?

I can buy medicare but SS? Not sure about that huff.

The government didn't do too well in it's oversight of Freddy Mac/Fanny Mae either.

I don't think the gov could do worse than the GM bafoons but IMO it sets a very bad precident. This is the same government that runs ginormous deficits but it's the same government that we're going to trust to run businesses now?

Scary stuff IMO....

social security

spends about 3% of its budget on administration compared to 30%+ for corporate health care.

the REPUBLICAN government didn't do too well. How do you expect anyone who thinks government is bad to be good at it? Especially when it come to oversight. The repubs have been railing against any kind of regulation for so long, it can't come as any surprise when they don't enforce the ones we have.

I agree, The BUSH govt

has done a horrible job. The CLINTON govt did a great job. The govt is always more efficient because they are not in it for profit.

Don't agree...

...but then again we usually don't...

You cant disagree

with proven facts. You just pretend that the facts are not true. That is what you "conservatives" usually do.

Huff....

....your track record with "facts" is abysmal so stick a sock in it.

Have a nice day....

Then I am sure that you can

provide some proof that my record with "facts" is abysmal. Just because the facts dont agree with what you want to be true, dont try to call me a liar.

O.K.....

....It seems to that you confuse folks giving opinions (99% of the posts here are opinions) with facts.

I'm offering my opinion on these issues and if you dissagree....fine. Don't come back saying it's a "fact" that the government is better at running things. Thats not a fact...it's an opinion.

As far as your "facts" go....I believe you've stated in the past that Obama had no shot at winning as a fact. Again...an opinion...and in that case an off base one.

Have a nice day huff...

The govt is better at running things

as they are not for profit. That is a PROVEN fact, not an opinion. You cannot disagree with PROVEN facts. You can, however, pretend that it is not a fact and lie about it like most "conservatives" do.

It's a "huff fact"...

....which Websters defines as an "opinion by the huffmeister"....

No, it is a proven fact

which intrudes on your right wing world view. It shatters your belief system and you cant deal with it.

Shatters my belief system?

Not really.

One of my most strongly held beliefs is that you're borderline pyschotic. That belief has been strongly re-enforced today. Thanx...

Telling the truth is psychotic?

Refusing to believe the truth is psychotic. You cant deal with it so you lash out. You are a joke.

Correction

"Conservative" Bush gov mismanagement. Did your examples of mismanagement cause the economic crisis or did the private sector cause it? It seems like the govt is coming to the rescue of the private sector. You are again proven wrong.

Ha!

You're one of a kind huff.

Some of the examples are from pre-bush or is government waste a new thing...in your world it probably is...

Anyway, yes the fed is comming to the rescue but that doesn't mean the fed is better at managing anything. The fed definately can't manage it's budget....the annual deficit this year alone is projected at 1.5 trillion plus (probably a conservative estimate)

Throw out some examples of how the government is more efficient at running things than the private sector. You've only thrown out "huff facts" so far....no links to any source that supports your OPINION that you state as fact. More of the same old BS from the huffmeister....can't support any of his "facts" with well...facts.

At least I try to support my OPINIONS with some supporting sources.

Social security, Medicare and the military

are things that the govt is efficient at running. Are you living in bizzarro world? The private sector has caused the economic crisis and the healthcare crisis. What the hell is wrong with you?

Well....

medicare...

http://www.cpsa.org.au/downloads/Media_Releases/2005Apr20%20medicare.PDF

Report by the GAO that covers several agencies...including defence/medicare

http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf2/161139.pdf

Defense dept.

http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/pdf/chan_r2.pdf

You still haven't provided ANYTHING other than your OPINION Huff. If you're going to state something as FACT at least provide something to back it up.

I have provided facts.

You just dont like the facts. Social security and medicare are not for profit. They are far more efficient than the private sector. ANYTHING that is not for profit is far more efficient than anything that is for profit. Why is this not getting thru to you? The govt is now bailing out the private sector due to mismanagement and waste. Damn!

Your opinion is duly noted....

...still no facts.

You are one hard headed moron

You can search on the googles to see I am right. I dont care if you believe facts or if you continue to live in a fantasy world.

I did google it....

..."examples of efficient federal management".....not much came up huffmeister but the stuff that did were GOVERNMENT links. Imagine that...

Still waiting for some examples (huff, just you giving your OPINION that something is efficiently run doesn't qualify as a fact)

It really doesn't huff....it's your OPINION.

Like your OPINION that there was no way in hell Obama could win that you presented as another "huff fact"....

My work here is done...have a nice day huffy

You lost the debate and you cant admit it.

You right wingers never deal with reality well. The private sector caused the economic crisis but you are telling me that they are more efficient than the govt. You have a complete disconnect from reality. I expect this from deluded right wingnuts like yourself.

You're right huff....

...the fed should run everything. I suggest they start with taking over your property you supposedly rent out. That'd be a good place to start since you, as a member of the private sector, obviously don't know what the hell your doing and the fed can do a much better job of managing your property.

Tell me how that works out for you...

Now you are just turning into the

right wingnut I always knew you were. Let that neocon beast out! What would a socialist like you know about living in the private sector?

You call me a Neocon and Socialist in the....

...same paragraph? You're priceless huff.

Turn your property to the fed because according to your "huff fact" they'll do a much better job of managing it than you.

Neocons are the biggest socialists

this country has ever known, as is being proven now. They like to privatize profits but socialize losses. Your last sentence is just rediculous because I never said that govt should run private business.

Huff...

...I went a little overboard yesterday in our argument...sorry.

Still don't trust the government to run much of anything but I do think some increased oversight is needed.

...and another thing...

When I say I don't trust the government to run much of anything I'm talking about taking over traditional private industry type thing. The gov needs to run social security, defense, medicare ect...

Even though I'd like to see more efficiency...especially in defense...

did you even read what you posted?

The first is an article about a program in NEW SOUTH WALES.
The second one details overpayment estimated at about the level of one bonus for a corporate CEO.

No doubt there is a need to improve there, but there is nothing there that even approaches the kind of waste and abuse (especially when ceo salaries and executive bonuses are included) that we see in Healthcare, banking or the auto industry today.

oops...

...my bad.

Isn't New South Wales the 51st state? Huff is gonna love this...thanx.

So you want the feds to run everything since they've proven themselves so efficient managers over the years like huff?

EVerything

No, But services like Administering Health Care. Absolutely. The problem there is that the corporations #1 priority is not care it is profit.

When it comes to places OUR money is needed like in bailing out the banks and auto industry, as long as our money is needed, we need a say in how things are done,

I can go with that actually...

....kind of went overboard with the huffmeister.

I have no problem with oversight (needed) I just don't want to see some sort of nationalization of the auto industry ect...

You lost the debate.

You jumped overboard after posting right wing crap.

I didn't lose the debate...

....my main point in the "debate" is that the fed has a pretty lousy record at efficient management. I just got carried away and apologized. We'll just agree to dissagree and leave it at that.....

I haven't seen anybody

promoting nationalization. But we need a say in the operation to safeguard our investment and an ownership stake until we are repaid.

Fair enough...

...

I have absolutely no reservations about the govt. sitting in the

boardroom on this one. How could they possibly do worse than GM itself has done for literally decades now? What, GM might lose money, shed jobs and produce cars no one wants to buy? That's already the problem. Maybe if the government is in there, they can force GM to do what it should have been doing all along, making high-quality, fuel efficient vehicles that the public wants to buy. I personally don't see a downside to us the taxpayers having a say in the running of the company we have invested a few billion dollars in saving.

Yes, they are big, they are American icons, and they represent a lot of jobs, but does that give them a license to steal? Because that is precisely what they are trying to do with this bailout package. Everyone who has gotten this money has done the same thing, taking the money, and then keeping it for themselves instead of using it to bring the credit markets back from the dead. Over $2 trillion so far, and Paulson refuses to tell us who got the money and how much and for what. Enough already! When someone wants to buy stock in a company or invest in a fund of some sort, they receive a prospectus about the investment and its possible risks, and the companies or funds have to report to their board and shareholders about their finances and stocks. I want exactly the same kind of accountability and transparency with this bailout. If companies are unwilling to allow even these traditional strings to be placed on the bailout money, it tells me they have something to hide, and I say let them collapse then.

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

The myth

that government bureaucracy is any worse than corporate bureaucracy is exactly that. A MYTH. I don't advocate government actually running the car business, but having a voice is another thing. As it is now, management looks only to immediate profit, not to growth or to long term improvement of the product. Decisions are made according to cutting costs rather than making a more desirable product.

Finally, what is best for a global corporation is not necessarily best for US. We need decisions that benefit the country while keeping the company competitive overall. IN turn, we need trade policies that make it more profitable for ANY company to build here rather than import.

A myth?

...overstated maybe but not a myth IMO.

""""Finally, what is best for a global corporation is not necessarily best for US. We need decisions that benefit the country while keeping the company competitive overall. IN turn, we need trade policies that make it more profitable for ANY company to build here rather than import.""""

Thats the rub right there. When your competing against countries like China that pay their workers about a 10th of what we pay ours.....makes it pretty hard to compete right off the bat. At least in the manufacturing sector.

If we instituted the same

sort of import tariff the Chinese put on our products (25% on cars) it would be a lot easier.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HF15Cb05.html

I can go with that....

....in fact I'd like to see that.

Probably won't see it though....the Chinese finance a large portion of our debt. It's why we've basically been kissing their asses. Don't want to piss them off or anything....

Well, we can't do that because of trade treaties that we have

So, since we can't compete on so many manufactured consumer products because we pay our workers more than $5 a day, unlike China and other low-cost slave labor nations, we should just admit that it's a waste of time to bail out the automakers. They can't compete globally, even if they got rid of unions and health insurance and pensions. Let they collapse rather than spend a few tens of billions that will do nothing more than enrich a few corporate CEOs and delay the inevitable.

Truth is whatever you can get other people to believe - Tom Smothers

I'd like to be able to tell GM to take a hike too....

but unfortunately theres this little matter of a couple million of our fellow americans that would lose their jobs as a result....along with the trickledown effect that would have on other sectors.

Just too big a blow at this particular time especially IMO.

Our government needs to step

Our government needs to step in to prevent US jobs from being outsourced. Any company that has moved any of its production overseas in the last 20 years should have an import tax levied on its products proportionate to the number of its jobs moved out of the country. Any company that used to buy its materials in the US but moved to overseas sources (except in cases where US sources no longer exist) should pay a fine commensurate to the amount of money lost to the US treasury by such a move. I think the US needs to start protecting its people and its jobs, not the bottom line of companies.

I agree to an extent....

....but we have to be carefull not to over-due it and drive businesses under by making them uncompetitive.

It's a balancing act to be sure and I agree with what you say as long as we do it smartly. (My confidence level on that isn't very high)

Low confidence

What we know for sure though, is that doing it the other way has been a disaster for us.

Comments

(63)