So far the U.S. has committed $12.8 trillion to bailing out Wall Street. Does this mean that Wall Street CEOs made mistakes? Apparently not. Because if it did, the Wall Streeters who cost taxpayers all that loot would be out of their jobs.

A few have moved on -- consider Merrill Lynch's former CEO Stan O'Neal, who, after leaving the investment bank with a then-record $2.24 billion loss, received a "kick in the rear" amounting to a $161 million retirement package. (O'Neal is just one of the Harvard MBAs whose destruction of the global economy is prompting some navel gazing at HBS.)

Most, though, are still at their desks, gamely calling the shots. Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner suggested it could be time for that to change.

Plenty of investors have been calling for General Motors Corporation (NYSE: GM) to be removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) as the automaker hovers on the brink of bankruptcy. But, like it or not, GM's rock-bottom share price isn't justification enough to oust the stock. GM still represents a major chunk of our industrial economy.

However, GM's nationalization would more than justify its removal from the Dow. After all, that's why American International Group (NYSE: AIG) got the boot last fall -- once the government took a controlling stake in the insurance giant, Dow Jones wasted no time adjusting its blue-chip lineup.

Last fall, I suggested that General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) ought to follow a six point restructuring plan. One of those steps was to can GM's CEO Rick Wagoner. Under his tenure, which began in 2000, GM's stock has lost 95% of its value and GM has posted $30 billion in 2008 losses while presiding over a North American market share slide from 33% to 19%. What amazes me is that GM's board did not step in years ago. So Monday, President Obama will officially ask Wagoner to step aside.

Harvard's business school (HBS) has been celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. And it looks to be at the peak of its power. That's unfortunate because five of its most powerful graduates have made significant contributions to absolutely wrecking the global economy. HBS admits people who are natural leaders. Unfortunately, many of the most powerful of these leaders have followed the path of destruction.

Here are five Harvard MBAs who wrecked the economy:

• George W. Bush ('75). The best thing I can say about Bush is that he said he was sorry for all the problems that occurred while he was in the White House. Unfortunately, he seems to believe he was a victim of events outside his control. One of his HBS professors said of Bush "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago."
• Hank Paulson ('70). As Treasury Secretary Paulson has consistently ignored the severity of the financial crisis -- In June 2006 he gave a speech at HBS in which he said, "this is by far the best global economy that I have seen in my career" -- but this September he was able to sell Congress on an ineffective plan to fix what he finally realized was an imploding economy -- a plan has kept changing. The economy has continued to crash despite his bone-headed efforts to save it.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) will never be the same. The American manufacturing icon is in the worst shape of its life in the past five decades, it's not selling the larger vehicles that have been its bread and butter for years and its stock is absolutely in the tank. It's also shutting down factories as it feverishly tries to reinvent itself. After all, Madonna has done this many times -- so why can't GM?

Okay, that's an unfair comparison. But for long-term survival, companies always need plans to rapidly change with the times, even if the money needed for that flexibility conflicts with the incessant market need for quarterly expectations. After all, like we've seen this week, the market is more emotional than a 14 year-old girl. It always will be. So, what can GM do? It's hard to say, but time is of the essence. Makeover times in this age should take double-digit months, not double-digit years.

Wipe off the dribbling eye shadow, visit Neiman Marcus, and get an extreme makeover -- that's what. Since GM really doesn't have a cash pile like some other blue chip companies, can it pay for a makeover? Doubtful. Can companies reinvent themselves with marketing and image? Sure, this happens all the time.

In 1945, when President Truman first proposed national health insurance, they [union leaders] cheered. In 1947, when Ford offered its workers a pension, the union voted it down. The labor movement believed that the safest and most efficient way to provide insurance against ill health or old age was to spread the costs and risks of benefits over the biggest and most diverse group possible. Walter Reuther [the national president of the U.A.W at the time]...believed that risk ought to be broadly collectivized. Charlie Wilson [president of G.M.], on the other hand, felt the way the business leaders of Toledo did: that collectivization was a threat to the free market and to the autonomy of business owners. In his view, companies themselves ought to assume the risks of providing insurance.

The New York Times reports that General Motors (NYSE: GM) wants a $50 billion bailout due to the credit crunch. It says it can't get the money it needs to build fuel efficient cars. But during the decade, when it was minting money from SUVs and trucks sales, GM could have invested those profits in fuel efficient products. Now that those profits have evaporated, it wants taxpayers to step in.

What kind of bailout does GM want? The Times reports it seeks $50 billion in government-backed loans to retool its plants to build fuel efficient cars. GM is not alone -- Detroit's automakers and the United Auto Workers (UAW) already requested Congress to "appropriate $3.75 billion to back the $25 billion in loans authorized last year." Now they want to double that amount and are "urging Congress to act by the end of September so that the money can be available next year." No doubt the industry is in trouble. The Times reports that "total sales for [August are forecast to be] 14.4 percent lower than a year ago and that G.M.'s sales [will drop] 27.5 percent."

But the economic logic for this taxpayer-funded bailout is tenuous. GM wants the government to leave it alone when it comes to fuel efficiency and it made huge profits on gas guzzlers before the price of oil shot up from $24 a barrel to $117. Thanks to GM's lack of investment in fuel efficient vehicles, its losses are soaring. Most recently it lost $4.4 billion and its revenues plunged 33% from $29.7 billion to $19.8 billion. It wants our money to make up for its bad management. Since its current CEO, Rick Wagoner, has taken over, GM's stock price has fallen 83%. But he still has the support of GM's board.

General Motors (NYSE: GM) posted a $15.5 billion loss in its second quarter. This was much worse than analysts had expected. With its stock opening 8% lower, GM stock has lost 84% of its market value since CEO Rick Wagoner began that job on June 1, 2000. His failure to prepare GM for high gasoline prices, as Toyota Motors (NYSE: TM) has done, makes me wonder whether GM's board is asleep at the switch.

GM's North American results were really bad. The New York Times reports it lost $4.4 billion and its revenues plunged 33% from $29.7 billion to $19.8 billion. But Wagoner has promoted cost reduction plans. In June, Wagoner announced that GM would close four assembly plants making pickups and SUVs by 2010 and cut vehicle production by 500,000. Then, on July 15, he detailed a 20% cut in "salaried personnel costs, the elimination of health-care coverage for white-collar retirees past the age of 65, and cuts in advertising and marketing budgets and capital expenditures," according to the Times.

Some Administration officials have been touting the wonders of a cheap dollar as if that will save our industries from a collapsing domestic economy. They should think again. Meanwhile, it is a testament to Wagoner's board relationships that there have not been calls for a new CEO. There is absolutely no way that GM can cut its way to prosperity. He has led GM into a situation where his choices are to cut costs or to file for bankruptcy. During the booming SUV and truck years, Wagoner could have invested the profits in energy efficient vehicles.

His failure to do so has jeopardized GM and should end his role as its CEO.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.