9 ms·

If you lend me $50 billion from your slush fund and let me convert most of it into worthless stock, I will then turn around and pay off the balance with interes

If you lend me $50 billion from your slush fund and let me convert most of it into worthless stock, I will then turn around and pay off the balance with interest. We have too much auto building capacity for this economic environment and the least competent should have been shut down. That's how the rest of the economy works. GM got a sweetheart deal for totally political reasons while thousands of other companies employing many more workers being paid realistic wages and benefits went bankrupt. Do the rest of us get paid to sit on our asses at "job banks" playing cards when we bet on the wrong employer or career? What is so sacrosanct about this particular work or group of workers?

josefresco 17y ago
"thousands of other companies employing many more workers" Ok so what's your short list of companies who employ roughly 250 thousand workers (and effect countless more) that could have used a bailout as well?
- modoc 17y ago
  What about a large number of smaller companies who employ the same in total? Or better yet, let companies fail, let the citizens keep their tax money to spend in the economy as they see fit.
  - lenley 17y ago
    How do you handle the World Trade model where foreign governments have no issue propping up their large industrial companies hit by recessions (companies that would also benefit from the decrease in your countries industrial capacity)?
    - stretchwithme 17y ago
      that's their business. if they wish to subsidize the production of products so that we pay less, let them. It has never been a path to real success. all that sort of thing does is build up dependency on the government and an insulation from the actual marketplace. That is more GM's problem than its solution.
      - notauser 17y ago
        In the past it has been a path to real success, and consumers ended up paying more because of it. One example would be the Japanese electronics industry in the 60s-70s, which was subsidized until it broke the back of US competition. It then reaped a good profit for a long time before other countries caught up. (I doubt that GM could do this, at least not without a lot more money. But examples of "successful" subsidization programs to strategically promote industry do exist.)
        stretchwithme 17y ago
        I think they also had lower wages, statistical process control, concurrent engineering, the Taguchi method, the five why's, just in time manufacturing and many other innovations going for them as well. You can't say their success was due to subsidies without eliminating the effects of all of these other things.
- stretchwithme 17y ago
  no one can use a bailout. my point was that we all need to be producing goods and services people are willing to pay for or go find something else to do.
- bmj 17y ago
  I find I can argue either side here. If GM closes a single auto plant, that does have a significant impact on that locale because so many people are out of work in a single stroke (see PGH when the steel industry died). 1000 small businesses shuttering their windows across the country still leaves quite a few people unemployed, but the ripple effects may not be as debilitating to each community.
  - stretchwithme 17y ago
    When we make decisions and they don't work out, we must bear the consequences. We choose where to live and what work to do. Its a shame but its not a justification for making other people, who nothing to do with making those decisions, suffer the consequences.
    - bmj 17y ago
      I agree--I was simply exploring another side to the argument.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Communities are a means to an end. If a manufacturing plant town in Michigan loses a GM plant, let the people move out to other communities where they need to hire people. Don't tax successful communities to prop it up. We've had ghost towns in this country before.
lallysingh 17y ago
Most of them are barely educated, have families, and vote.
lyudmil 17y ago
Your post expresses valid frustrations about the way the bailouts were handled, but in this case I have to disagree with most of what you're saying. Think back to the way things were when GM was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. The housing bubble had just burst, unemployment had shot up, etc. If you had allowed GM to go under in those conditions you would likely be facing a full-on depression in places like Michigan. So the reasons for this bailout weren't all political. At least in the case of the GM bailout the taxpayers got something in return for their money - they got control of the companies, which wasn't even an option politicians were willing to discuss during the bank bailouts. Yes, GM's arrogance is frustrating, but in this case the people are in a position to do something about it if they felt strongly enough. You are the majority stock owners at GM - write your senator and make sure GM's behavior is aligned with your interests. One thing I would suggest is pushing for GM to be heavily involved in the expansion of the US railroad system - something that will happen, but is currently a job that's mostly going to be shipped out to companies in Spain. That's probably more important than the ad.
- stretchwithme 17y ago
  control of this company is worthless. anybody could have picked it up in bankruptcy court. Its not worth 1 billion let alone 50

josefresco 17y ago

"thousands of other companies employing many more workers" Ok so what's your short list of companies who employ roughly 250 thousand workers (and effect countless more) that could have used a bailout as well?

modoc 17y ago
What about a large number of smaller companies who employ the same in total? Or better yet, let companies fail, let the citizens keep their tax money to spend in the economy as they see fit.
- lenley 17y ago
  How do you handle the World Trade model where foreign governments have no issue propping up their large industrial companies hit by recessions (companies that would also benefit from the decrease in your countries industrial capacity)?
  - stretchwithme 17y ago
    that's their business. if they wish to subsidize the production of products so that we pay less, let them. It has never been a path to real success. all that sort of thing does is build up dependency on the government and an insulation from the actual marketplace. That is more GM's problem than its solution.
    - notauser 17y ago
      In the past it has been a path to real success, and consumers ended up paying more because of it. One example would be the Japanese electronics industry in the 60s-70s, which was subsidized until it broke the back of US competition. It then reaped a good profit for a long time before other countries caught up. (I doubt that GM could do this, at least not without a lot more money. But examples of "successful" subsidization programs to strategically promote industry do exist.)
      - stretchwithme 17y ago
        I think they also had lower wages, statistical process control, concurrent engineering, the Taguchi method, the five why's, just in time manufacturing and many other innovations going for them as well. You can't say their success was due to subsidies without eliminating the effects of all of these other things.
stretchwithme 17y ago
no one can use a bailout. my point was that we all need to be producing goods and services people are willing to pay for or go find something else to do.
bmj 17y ago
I find I can argue either side here. If GM closes a single auto plant, that does have a significant impact on that locale because so many people are out of work in a single stroke (see PGH when the steel industry died). 1000 small businesses shuttering their windows across the country still leaves quite a few people unemployed, but the ripple effects may not be as debilitating to each community.
- stretchwithme 17y ago
  When we make decisions and they don't work out, we must bear the consequences. We choose where to live and what work to do. Its a shame but its not a justification for making other people, who nothing to do with making those decisions, suffer the consequences.
  - bmj 17y ago
    I agree--I was simply exploring another side to the argument.
- philwelch 17y ago
  Communities are a means to an end. If a manufacturing plant town in Michigan loses a GM plant, let the people move out to other communities where they need to hire people. Don't tax successful communities to prop it up. We've had ghost towns in this country before.

lallysingh 17y ago

Most of them are barely educated, have families, and vote.

lyudmil 17y ago

Your post expresses valid frustrations about the way the bailouts were handled, but in this case I have to disagree with most of what you're saying. Think back to the way things were when GM was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. The housing bubble had just burst, unemployment had shot up, etc. If you had allowed GM to go under in those conditions you would likely be facing a full-on depression in places like Michigan. So the reasons for this bailout weren't all political. At least in the case of the GM bailout the taxpayers got something in return for their money - they got control of the companies, which wasn't even an option politicians were willing to discuss during the bank bailouts. Yes, GM's arrogance is frustrating, but in this case the people are in a position to do something about it if they felt strongly enough. You are the majority stock owners at GM - write your senator and make sure GM's behavior is aligned with your interests. One thing I would suggest is pushing for GM to be heavily involved in the expansion of the US railroad system - something that will happen, but is currently a job that's mostly going to be shipped out to companies in Spain. That's probably more important than the ad.

stretchwithme 17y ago
control of this company is worthless. anybody could have picked it up in bankruptcy court. Its not worth 1 billion let alone 50