It's long overdue. I say we let GM fail and plan for the problems it brings as part of the re-building process. Two scenarios: 1) GM fails now and we drop between two and three million jobs. We factor that in with the rest of our problems and work on rebuilding and growing. 2) We prop GM up(@ the expense of approx 2.3 billion a month) and we give ourselves a false sense of security. Other sectors start improving and life starts to look a little better, and THEN GM fails setting us back even more than the original estimate of two to three million jobs. Let it happen now, not later. And should Ford fail with it, so be it. They should've been smarter and more competitive a long time ago. Arrogance brought this problem, and I say we let them die.
Me too(I live less than 8 hours from the Motor City), but the fact is that it's going to happen. It's just a matter of timing at this point. It would be so disastrous to start rebuilding now, economically, and to have something happen, such as GM(Yes, General Motors, aka Chevy, GMC etc) going bankrupt in the middle of it all. NOW is the time to let the major car companies fall. Take the budgeted energy advancement monies and give less companies more money. That is the truly smart thing to do. Continuing to allow GM and Ford to operate so poorly while being held together by tax payer money is bogus. If GM gets a 'bail-out' it opens a whole can of worms for other sectors to make a similar argument that millions of jobs are tied to their sector too. It's too high a price to forestall something that is inevitable.
That's the other side of the coin. Even if GM is kept up jobs will still be loss. Production will slow, "efficiency cuts" will be made etc. GM will continue 'laying off' employees that will never be re-hired. Other industries tied directly to companies like GM will also begin 'efficiency cuts' regardless if GM closes or not. No matter what jobs are going to be lost over this. Take the hit now without wasting 2.3 billion a month.
Propping up bad corporations just prolongs the hemorrhaging as Mak said. Of course it isn't helping some of the bailout money is ending up at banks that do not need it and are using it to buy up smaller banks to create a monopoly.
FUCK THE CAR INDUSTRY.... Heres the plan and formula.. Turn off those fucking lights at car dealerships at night and you will save tons of cash and bail yourself outs.. If you figured out how much energy they waste on overhead lighting.. And I know you can just by taking a walk on a lot and counting lamps.. If car dealships did this throughout the United States.. The price of cars would be a nickle in week!!!! The Energy Crisis is JOKE.. If is wasnt then a simple Plan like this would be inacted.. GM IS A JOKE!!! BTW NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT LOOKING AT CARS AT NIGHT!!!!! Light a candle.. WERE BURING OIL AND USING NUCLEAR ENERGY TO LIGHT UP CAR DEALSHIPDS AT NIGHT... I sure wish I lived in a time when there was AIR RAID WARNINGS IN THE USA... TURN OUT THAT LIGHT!!!!!
The interesting thing about the bank thing though is that beyond the obvious of eliminating competition, our own regulatory system is forcing their hand in doing so. I forget the exact phrasing but essentially for every $1 one deposits in the bank, the bank can generally loan out $10($20 in really good times, which created the problem). The run on the banks, 401(k)s etc left the banks with an unacceptable debt:equity ratio and was leaving them in a position to HAVE to call in debts. What happens when the bank calls Mr. Smith to inform him that they're invoking their right to collect the last $220,000 of his mortgage in total. Bad things, that's what happens. However when you're handed $x and those $x are enough to buy a bank that happens to have $3x in reserves, you maximize the efficiency of that money by uisng it to triple the figure on your balance sheet. It's the same thing that was going on decades ago when large companies with poorly managed pension funds would buy weaker, smaller companies with well managed pension funds to make up the difference. The only difference is that all of America was running on double borrowed money this time instead of just some major corps. This auto industry problem is a much different beast though. There's nothing to be gained by bailing out GM. At least with the bail outs of the banks we've staved off "impending financial doom" and allowed the banks a chance to make proper moves to fix this problem. We're going to see over the next 5-10 years a transformation of the banking and credit systems. There would be no such advantage to saving GM(and/or Ford) because they've been failing for years and will continue to do so despite cash injections.
Well , what do u do? Bin the car plants for scrap or send em to China? ( like what the dickheads who run Britain did?) People don't start not needing cars because of a recession. Yes things might be financially fucked .But the real economy is still there. There's surely a place for the State ( or anyone else) to buy up stock cheap , and keep the "real world" going.
What you do is allow GM to fail (and again, Ford too if it happens) and you take the money you would've wasted on them to incentivize other, STRONGER, car companies to do more business in the US.
Well the point is , the State has gotta take a share of the profits. And if there's too many car cos , well u merge some.( I dont think there are tho , by a long way). If the State pays the cash , it calls the shots- re sell offs , downsizing ,profits , everything. I think the problem isnt GM failure , more financial system failure and lack of honesty/transparency Its an outrage that Britain promotes a bizarre fundamentalist type of Capitalism. And used ALL of its own car industry as a "sacrificial lamb" to promote that. ( We dont have a single British car co now...!)
The thing is IF GM and Ford are not destined to fail, their stock is priced at bargain levels and is a huge buy.
GM failing is a small price to pay after the bullshit bailout we just and continue to support. let every place fail and go under
I'm going to read the thread more carefully- but my immediate reaction: I disagree. One perspective that I don't see discussed often enough is: let GM's creditors fail! That's the point. When there is a "bailout"--- actually what the taxpayer is doing is not bailing out the company- but it's creditors. As if bad lending was sacred. I say, let GM file for bankruptancy but keep operating. Offer public credit to prop it up because that credit is compensated for many times over when it comes to industry. Industry produces material wealth--- finance produces predatorial wealth. That's my perspective: bail out industry and let financiers fail--- because those fucks never created a single productive job in their lives. Of course, that option isn't discussed in most cases because the financiers themselves are responsible for electing whoever it is they want elected from either party---.