During the mid 80's I had conversations with several middle managers at GM concerning quality. There was no real desire to change anything as these people were near retirement and were pleased with the way the company was headed. 'If GM just last five more years, I'm happy." was a frequent comment.

There was a battle raging at the top of GM between the numbers people and the car guys. One group could only see the next quarterly report and the other could only see the long range health of the company.

There was also a management fad at the time of 'The company belongs to the stockholders, so we must do everything to maximize shareholder value' and this led to decisions that put the onus on short term gains. Nothing else mattered.

But the customers had the last word, and a bad experience with a purchase that many make only every six years led customers to avoid the brand. Management found that the profit numbers were adequate, so the loss of market share was not a great concern.

In sum: Profit per unit on a small car is slight, but profit on an SUV is large. Therefore production was skewed towards the SUV's which is the automotive equal of putting all of ones eggs in one basket.

Poor management is always the cause of a ventures demise. I have heard every excuse you can imagine for failure, and they always end with 'But I did everything right'.

Capitalism is complex, and to blame a cause that is with-in the control of management for a failure is not an example of reality.