Trusting a brand starts with being true to the truth.
[Uh, Toyota? We got this, now?]
So, GM is telling the world its gov loans are repaid "in full", suggesting - GM is free of handouts, GM has cash again, GM is back.
Oh, really? Like those EPA fuel mileage window-stickers, these GM claims should also come with an 'actual results may vary' disclaimer.
First, there is the cash question. Is GM cash rich from biz improvement, giving back excess government money it received and doesn't need, OR using one loan to pay off the other? [See my uncle Angelo for details on that last concept.]
The bigger issue is the FACT that GM's repayment represents but a fraction of the $50 billion bailout it received from U.S. / Canadian governments, most of which won't be paid back. Instead it's been converted into GM stock [TBD on this ROI story].
All not exactly consistent with THIS W's wording to the world - "We've repaid our governement loan IN FULL, with interest".
Surely, Ed's not hoping people will think GM is completely free of public welfare / 'socialist' control? What is it with 'W's' and implied truth?
And stay tuned for that whole 'Volt will be here in October' claim, too.
UPDATE - Ha!
Friday, April 23, 2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
I like stories like this NY Times column because -
a] It takes the macro-view of things,
b] It puts the negative spin about the here / now into perspective.
Youth, diversity, enterprise, education, fertile thinking.
All good. Because the kids are alright.