Charlie Rose

TheQuietOne  01/11/2012 06:03 PM Report

Do you remember Chevrolet Vega?

The car subsequently became widely known "joke" for a broad range of issues including problems related to its engineering,reliability, safety, propensity to rust – and engine durability. Despite a series of recalls and design upgrades, the Vega's problems tarnished both its own as well as General Motor's reputation, leading to its cancellation at the end of the 1977 model year.

How come he does not mention the piece of junk GM produced from 1970 to 1977?

kuona  11/27/2011 12:03 PM Report

Mr Lutz would have been a highly respected "Car Guy" in the 1960's and into the 1970. But apart from his dedication to product excellence, that's about where it stops. The mid 70's.

He and other Detroit executive failed to recognise that cars had to become smaller and more fuel efficient. The Japanese came into the US/Canada market and at first everyone laughed. But look at where they are now. The big three are now spinning their wheels to catch up with fuel efficiency and the winner in terms of growth will probably be Fiat/Chrysler because they have the concept of fuel efficiency in their blood thanks to their Italian CEO.

Second will be Ford because they started ahead of GM at developing the cars of the future. Ford also have a CEO who seems to understand where the industry should be headed.

GM in terms of growth will remain in third place as long as they maintain the attitude that BIG is the way to go.

The Detroit executives of the 70's , 80's and 90's should be held responsible for continuing to make the American consumers beleive that they NEEDED big vehicle and that they had the God Given right to consume fossil fuels at 5 times the rate of the other inhabitants of this planet. The Amercian governments are also to blame for continuing to keep the price of fuel lower than just about anywhere in the world thus encouraging consumers to continue buying those big cars from Detroit. And thereby pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.

But to cap it all, poor Mr Lutz demonstrated his American arrogance when he stated that he did't beleive in Climate Change or that it's man made by stating that "more scientists are getting off the bus". Come on Mr Lutz how much longer do you guys want to continue destroying the leadership that the USA is in the process of losing.

JohnGelles  11/15/2011 07:00 AM Report

The federal government, i.e., congress and the lending appointed and confirmed regulators, as well as the lenders and the rating agencies all caused the mortgage and financial assets crisis.

From Lutz' point of view, I think he only meant the private corporate sellers of car-finance contracts, like GM Acceptance and Ford finance lenders, etc., were not to blame for the recession that doomed their sales volumes.

We on the left in domestic wage labor policy, however, do blame GM and other major political players for our failure to have a recession-proof system.

Our system of economic insecurity for almost the whole middle class stinks. Lutz is more to blame for it than I am. I want output-based money so that the federal government will finance full employment budgets.

Lutz doesn't even know what output-based money is, compared to debt-based money. Yet his car industry depends on money enough to go around if they want to sell a lot of cars.

Sheldon  11/15/2011 05:05 AM Report

I stopped watching when he said the said the federal government caused the mortgage crisis. This man is an idiot or a charlatan.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/14/2011 05:11 PM Report

Isn't a "car guy" like a "man's man"?

So then, "Man's Man vs Bean Counters: The Battle for the Testosterone of American Business."

Mr. Lutz demonstrated in this interview that he has the testosterone.

winter  11/13/2011 09:30 PM Report

How about a phone thats just a phone and lower my bill in proportion to what I'm not getting.

JohnGelles  11/11/2011 06:03 AM Report

We must look at the progress made in PHYSICS compared to progress in LAW and ECONOMICS. And noting that if law and economics have progressed 1 % then physics has progressed 1,000,000 % or more, we must strive to introduce science to law and economics to some small degree, as physics has accepted and defined it completely for whatever good it is.

www.ustaxreform.us/.crs.htm ... <--link to related interviews

JohnGelles  11/11/2011 05:45 AM Report

By the end of the 21st Century America will be one of a half-dozen top tier nations, or above or below a top tier group.

Today we are still above all others, but China, Russia, and India are well positioned to challenge America and possibly take the lead away from her.

However, the important outcome will not be the shape of the top tier and possible peak, it will be the existence of the human race -- will it be extinct?

And, if not gone, will the condition of the bottom base of the socio-economic pyramid in 2100 be enviable by today's standards? Or will it be miserable--with most people in it wishing they were dead?

Bob Lutz and thousands of successful competitors shoot their mouth off in books, performances and appearances, making predictions and claiming to he aware of general principles -- most of which are nothing but BS.

When Elon Musk implied how foolish it is to risk global warming when corrective investments are insurance whose cost is zero (because we need more investment for full employment, and we do not need to burn carbon in all events,) Lutz remained stubbornly with the bean counters who have no clue of the realities that transcend financial numbers.

The outcome these Charlie Rose shows should never lose sight of are the Four Freedoms we wanted from WW II and the triumph of science in pursuit of health and happiness (meaning virtue more than gaiety) that has been possible since the Enlightenment.

The specifics of consumer selection of winners (influenced as it is by advertising and consumers' average ignorance), when compared to prize juries and the verdict of history and scholarship, needs special criticism. The so called market is false more often then not. Bureaucracies are also no good. Tyrants are even worse. In this discussion, GENIUS was worshiped -- and we can all buy that!

BUT HOW TO ENCOURAGE THE GENIUS OFTEN REWARDED BY PRIZE JURIES IS THE QUESTION WE MUST ALWAYS ADDRESS !!

We are presently prisoners of "low cost" trapped in systems where recorded costs are biased by legacies that preserve pure lies, ignorance and cheating. We must have effective means to overrule "low cost" with "high truth". Such means will always be hard to invent or discover -- but they must be valued far more than the status quo.

We must look at the progress made PHYSICS compared to progress in LAW and ECONOMICS. And noting that if law and economics have progressed 1 % then physics has progressed 1,000,000 % or more, we must strive to introduce science to law and economics to some small degree, as physics has accepted and defined it completely for whatever good it is.

JDWilson  11/11/2011 01:37 AM Report

Bob does not have degrees in science or engineering. Wow, he said it is not manmade!? Corvette is a nice car, but as far as comparing it to Ferrari, it is a big leap. Great cars are not evaluated by just a measurement of how many seconds from 0 to 60 mph. Charlie, please do not let your speakers get away with stuff like this.

DIG  11/10/2011 11:33 PM Report

I just had another thought about the Lutz inteview re: Toyota. His misrepresentation of so many issues makes his declaration of Toyota's fall less credible. I suspect Toyota enjoyed this interview quite a lot.

tabs  11/10/2011 07:03 PM Report

The Lutz interview was excellent. It sounds like his new book could be the sequel to Halbershams "The Reckoning" The most important thing Mr Lutz had to say was about PRODUCT EXCELLENCE and that should be emblazoned with a tattoo on every CEO, CFO and COB posterior so that they don't forget. As for the TARP and GM/Chrysler Bailouts as much as many people didn't like em, they were the lessor of two evils.

As for a personal opinion directed to Mr Lutz as a car guy....God and Ferry Porsche rested in 1974.

metheny  11/10/2011 06:16 PM Report

See also pbsnewshour piece on the Volt. Lutz is a capable and cogent executive with an important observation regarding typical business' perspective. Might be high time for people to perceive how capable GM is. Much of the competition can now be seen to have better PR than product.

dreygo  11/10/2011 05:20 PM Report

I know it is a little dicey to voice disagreement in internet discussion areas, but I felt compelled to present another perspective to mabraham's. It may be that most might agree with his perspective, but I noted a couple of things as I read through his bullet points-

-I am not sure that Mr. Lutz acted as if he was forced into bailout. Indeed I think his opinion was that some of the things the government did created problems that put him at ease in going forward with a bailout at GM.

-Environmental regulations DO affect the free market in this sense…these regulations add expense. At the risk of sounding like a bean-counter, extra expenses generally tend to lower either margins or revenue depending upon how they are passed along to the customer. Regulatory expense, while generally built on sound principle, is coercive in nature.

-The move toward improved fuel efficiency DID adversely hit GM. The market and regulatory environment was not, and will never be the same as Asia and Europe. If GM, or any other American car company, would have made the decision to make a philosophical change to smaller more fuel efficient vehicles, they would have had their lunch handed to them by the companies that focused on design.

-I think you are correct in saying that GM was kicking the can down the road as far as labor goes, but we shouldn't forget that the unions were also kicking the same can. They knew, or should have known, what could happen during a downturn just as the company should have. Even during the darkest times, they were very stubborn in allowing for any flexibility until the end game was apparent.

-As far as the housing bubble, it seems difficult to bring to terms exactly who is responsible for how much of the issue. I would only disagree in that it is almost universally accepted that government DID play a role in this issue. Beyond that, I wouldn't wade in deep enough to assign the level of culpability to all the responsible parties.

Thanks for the inspiration mabraham, and I hope you have a great day!

DIG  11/10/2011 04:43 PM Report

Lutz is a self described "Car Guy" and as one would be wise to stick to that subject of cars. Though he did come off as a strong tap dancer when explaining the GM meltdown. He showed that sort of flippant arrogance which is always offputing, but I wanted to hear the next guest. When Lutz veered off on to topics like the financial meltdown and mistakenly blamed Community Investment Act of 98 for the meltdown, and stated that humans don't contribute to the increase of carbon emissions, he made himself a fool. Possibly he's suffering from the side effects for inhaling too much carbon monoxide.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/10/2011 02:54 PM Report

“I like value for money cars.” Yes Bob this is it baby.

This is why I read Consumer Reports and perhaps why you should too.

mabraham  11/10/2011 12:04 PM Report

Stopped watching after just a few minutes. Can't stand these CEOs who blame everyone but themselves.

- GM needed a bailout. They testified in front of a congressional comity on national television for Pete's sake! Don't come pretending you were forced into it.

- Environmental regulations don't affect the free market. These rules are the same for everybody.

- Fuel efficiency regulation didn't unfairly hit GM. The Japanese and Europeans were ready because ... they already had to face such regulations not because they were given a pass.

- Labor and social laws aren't tougher in the US than in Japan or Europe, on the contrary. GM had been kicking the can down the road for decades.

- Gvt regulation, enacted in the early 90s not 1998, didn't cause the real estate bubble. Reckless and fraudulent securitization did.

Etc, etc, etc.

See Steven Rattner, former head of the administration’s emergency rescue of the auto industry task force, for an other more plausible description of GM management.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11258

JohnHanley  11/10/2011 11:30 AM Report

I finally understand from this interview why Steve Jobs was concidered such an important person. He wasn't concerned about what other people thought of his work, his creative process seems to have been linked to his sense of identity.The comment Charlie made about focus groups was what made me realize this. I think it's really important to be that way. People aren't tools, you know, and eveyone in some way or another has something unique about them to contibute to society, but it seems like most people are too timid to make the exploration of themselves, and instead forclose their selfhood to what others think they should be. Still, I think it's a stretch to say Steve Jobs changed the world. It seems questionable that the iphone, for instance has helped the people who use it to make the good choice for themselves that Steve made. Rather, I think, it may have done the opposite for most, enabled them in their error of "loosing themselves in a multiplicity", to borrow a phrase from Kirkegaard. I don't think that's Steve Job's fault, but I do believe it's the difference between a really good buisness person and a great man.