| wmhjr |
03-23-2011 09:42 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper
(Post 339731)
:lol: Yea that's it. A big chip!
A guy posts an article of a successful business operation, especially compared to its competition and people think they need to post "THEIR" assumptions of te how's or why's.
It's great reading material and comic relief but it gets old. It just seems like you wanted to post something negative about the story. I do not know about you and maybe you have but I don't run a billion dollar company.
|
Sniper, it's not an "assumption". It's fact. You can argue that whether or not Mulally is "smart" is an assumption. Or any number of things. But to be perfectly blunt, it is a total fact that Ford was exceptionally lucky that just months before the collapse, they leveraged virtually ALL of their assets even including their branding and logo for $23B - and they cut their workforce by 50% as well as salaried expense by 40%. And that it was absolutely, factually and concretely these changes that allowed Ford to gain market share and outperform their domestic competition. There is zero debate about that.
My comments are not negative. Only somebody who wants to look at facts from a biased position would take it that way. I have nothing against Ford and think Mulally is a bright guy - AND if you note in my post I gave credit for both he AND Ford shareholders for making some tough decisions.
The point is that there is so much BS flying around out there that many people just think Ford "designed better product" or some other reason for them not being forced to the point of bankruptcy to take the bailout. Better to be open about what happened without the drama or the cheerleading. |
