Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I agree with you that there’s no way GM, Ford and Chrysler could be perceived as helpless victims to unforeseen circumstances. If we extend the biological analogy further, the concept of “survival of the fittest” is based on the notion that species that have a particular set of traits which gives them an advantage in food consumption and reproduction will drive out those which lack these much-needed traits to flourish.

From that vantage point, it’s a little bit worrying to see that a limited resource – public funds – is being used to sustain companies that clearly lack those traits to simply survive, forget being profitable. Sure, one could argue that this will help protect against the loss of jobs or a further eroding of the economy, but honestly how can this not be seen as a band-aid solution if the model in question is not sustainable. Of course, the fact that GM is insisting on using these funds to create an ad campaign to convince us they’re going to change simply adds to this skepticism that this was a bad investment that will come back to haunt us. In some ways, “change” has become the “where’s the beef” catch for this decade, with too many using it for smoke-and-mirrors effect than a genuine attempt to bring something new to the table. As such, these measures taken by the Canadian, US, and Ontario governments seem more like a stay of execution than a get-out-jail card.

It’s time these companies realize that they need turn themselves upside down and throw out the assembly-line mentality that they’ve been coasting on for the last few years and in a year from now, come forward with a whole new approach to both how they will run their company and who they want their target market to be.

And don’t worry about the rant. Whether someone agrees with my position or not is not the goal so much as it is to get people to re-think these issues and consider if the status quo is really the best we can do. So I’m glad to hear that you found this piece to be a great starting point to starting a discussion on this issue.

Thanks again for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.

You’ve hit the nail on the head with this post and I think the comparison to the dodo bird’s inability to defend itself against newcomers and adapt to new circumstances is partly what’s plaguing the big three auto manufacturers.

To add to that I would say that an element of greed and arrogance contributed greatly to their current situation. Unfortunately that’s what’s wrong with the current economic meltdown – too much greed and arrogance and not enough focus on sustainable initiatives.

Unlike the dodo bird which didn’t know any better or have many options (the term bird brain comes to mind) I wouldn’t give Chrysler, GM and Ford the benefit of calling themselves helpless victims of a situation they could have done something about.

The dodo bird could not fly, defend itself or adapt to new food sources, but the auto makers could have made different decisions back when they had a chance to. I would hope that they were smarter than the dodo bird – guess not!

And what kind of message is the government sending by bailing these businesses out in the USA? Capitalism is good for the little guy who is free to fail or succeed. But if you’re a big guy, then we’ll bail your ass out if you fail. Hey isn’t that a little like communism? Where’s the American dream in this?

Haven’t read your follow up post to this one, but I imagine that you touch on some of these points.

Sorry about the rant, but your post is a great discussion starter!