Date registered: Aug 2002
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
Interesting read and a believable theory, the major flaw I see is it is incredibly narrow in breadth of scope. To think the simple "must drive you own brand" demand within GM changed things that much alone is silly. Well before 1970 could you get a mega Olds '98 or a Buick Limited decked in more chrome than a Wurlitzer or Cadillac. Please look back to similar grand Buick's and Oldsmobile's from the 50's and as far back as the late 30's to show the article's timeline is flawed in not recognizing Cadillac like luxury being offered well before 1970. I imagine the writer is accidentally exposing his/her age and lack of knowledge on the subject.
It is true that GM was very guilty of mixing the brands together too much through parts and finally styling. This was more a flaw of accounting than any division's lack of leadership. This editorial smacks of an overly critical and slightly ignorant point of view not to recognize several other mitigating factors. It is this hyper critical, narrow, "deconstructive" view that reaches for any plausible negatives that has hindered the advance of the USA and has bred a generation of spoiled people who think criticisms declare intelligence without giving just ado to the equal side of the coin that promotes positives. Learning to deconstruct is critical but no more so than learning to construct. It is also easier to criticize an attempt to build than go out an build yourself. The generations of spoiled individuals need to come to a reckoning with this before it blind sides them.
One other small miscalculation is that the corporations do not decide what people will buy, the people decide for themselves. As if the consumer has not a mind of its own? Duh on the most basic level! It also pokes fun at the socialistic turning and prosperity of the USA in the time period explained. People were simply able to afford better cars with more luxury than ever before and in greater numbers. DUH!