7 ms·

Most people posting here say that the US/Canadian government should interfere here. I'd like to present a different point of view: I am relatively young, from t

Most people posting here say that the US/Canadian government should interfere here. I'd like to present a different point of view: I am relatively young, from the Netherlands and started my job a few years ago. I do not really remember the 2008/2009 bailouts. I have some savings, and I invested mostly in a Dutch ETF, which lead to a nice mix of tech, finance, Food Industry and a big oil company. I invested a small portion of my money in GM because I did not have a car manufacturer in my portfolio, and Tesla seemed hyped to me. I considered that GM is making a profit, betting on electric cars and already has an affordable model on the roads that could actually benefit society. I do not care wheter GM production is in the US, Canada, Mexico or China, as long as the employees are treated fairly. In fact, I would think it is unfair that GM makes a choice that will lead to lower dividends and is held back by something that happened prior to the moment that I invested in it.

swarnie_ 8y ago
I was in almost the exact same situation as you; young, European and looking for a car maker to round out that part of my portfolio. I opt'ed for VW as it was very cheap after the scandal and had some of the best brands in the business. Why did you pick GM instead?
- evandijk70 8y ago
  I had two reasons: 1. The scandal itself. I do not want to support a company that has a proven record of not caring about the environment. I understand that this probably applies to all car companies, but VW is the only one that got caught. Getting caught circumventing environmental laws should be something that CEO's are afraid of, and this is an easy way to contribute to that fear. I would not buy a VW for the same reason. 2. I wanted to diversify outside of the EU. The Dutch and German economy are very connected, which would make my portfolio very vulnerable to a recession in either of those two countries.
  - ericzawo 8y ago
    How could you possibly say point 1 while also being a big oil shareholder?
    - canadianwriter 8y ago
      Because money.
    - evandijk70 8y ago
      The big oil company, Shell, was included in the ETF for the AEX (Index for the Dutch stock market) I bought, so I did not really have a choice there, other than buying ~20 individual stocks which given my small portfolio would be to expensive due to transaction fees. Moreover, I believe that oil, at least for now, is a necessity for human society and I have no reason to believe that there are other oil companies that are better for the environment than Shell, whereas in the car industry there are plenty of viable alternatives.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
canadianwriter 8y ago
Maybe this will annoy some people but as someone who lives in the GTA, this attitude just sounds like you are saying your investment portfolio is more important than the thousands of people losing their jobs just before christmas. I know there are big important things to discuss here (such as the bailout that we all know isn't being paid back and overall manufacturing) but my first emotional response is a certain finger pointed in your general direction.
- all2 8y ago
  At the base of things, though, GM is looking to make money. If they lose money by staying in Ontario, they do no one any good (not the taxpayers who foot the bill, not the government that transfers money from the taxpayers to the corporation, not the people being paid by the corporation). The bailout presumes a degree of economic health in the region (and perhaps the country) that may not be there. Being bailed out means the employees are on borrowed time. Money is the bottom line. Failure is necessary. Jobs are a byproduct of consumption and are not a 'right'. If GM pulls out, there will be other places those employees can seek work. If there aren't other places they can get jobs, perhaps Canada should reconsider some of their business regulations (as regulation suppresses numbers of new businesses).
  - burkaman 8y ago
    No, society is the bottom line. Money is an imperfect medium for regulating society, and government should step in when it doesn't work.
    - all2 8y ago
      Depending on where you're from, the individual is the bottom line. Money mediates individual exchange. In the US the Fed has a very specific role. Bailing out companies is not actually part of that. In fact, if the Constitution were taken seriously any more, someone would have noticed the bit about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I suppose this is Canada we're talking about, so the above doesn't mean anything in this context.
cptskippy 8y ago
> betting on electric cars and already has an affordable model on the roads that could actually benefit society. GM is hedging their bets at best. Right now the Volt and Bolt are compliance cars that allow the remainder of their fleet to be inefficient and still meets CAFE standards.
- ip26 8y ago
  The bolt has best in class range, doesn't seem like a throwaway effort in that regard..
  - Theodores 8y ago
    How hard can it be though? If a small child manages to wipe his/her own nose then they can be told 'well done!' but it isn't an achievement really. You would not commend a grown adult for keeping their face clean. This GM company has been going for a century and for most of that time their products have shown no effort to be considerate of the environment. Stop-start is not rocket science. Light hybrid vehicles are not rocket science. A small child can see the absurdity of cities gridlocked by slow moving or completely stationary vehicles all of them spewing exhaust for no reason. If not the environment it is a waste of petrol. Stop-start has only came along in the last few years, this could have been marketed to people as the thing to have, who doesn't want a nice quiet car when stuck in traffic? But GM never bothered to do stop-start, something that is a nice engineering challenge, not beyond the realms of impossible. In fairness none of their rivals took this route until the laws made CO2 and other emissions a problem for them. We know from EV cars that going down hills does not mean lots of heavy braking, you can store the energy and save the brakes. It would not have been impossible for GM to implement something similar, even fifty years ago a solution could have been worked out with a mechanical flywheel, maybe using the already present battery as the mass for that. GM - and the others - never even bothered with that. The aerodynamics of a car is another aspect where GM failed. It is not hard and even with no wind tunnel it can be deduced that tucking in the windscreen wipers, door handles and other parts will improve the efficiency. The underside of GM (and other) cars is a joke when it comes to aero. They just never bothered. My background is bicycles where a 4 watt gain is pretty good. A 4 Kg weight saving is epic, the difference between a Tour de France bike and what a mere mortal can afford is 4 Kg. The chrome trim on a GM effort weighs more than my heaviest steel mountain bike. Obviously my heavy mountain bike is actually quicker than any GM product through a congested city and I certainly don't have a V8 motor in my inner core. So where is this Bolt thing really? Are we talking rocket surgery or a kid being applauded because they have wiped their own nose? It is easy to criticise when you haven't built a car yourself, sure the realities of mass manufacturing are hard, but I don't think GM have ever really tried. There may be many jobs and communities dependent on GM but there were many jobs and communities dependent on the predecessor companies that made buggies in the Detroit area. The sooner GM is gone the better able the rest of the automotive trade can get on with providing people with cars more in line with Ford's vision, circa Model T era, before GM came along with their planned obsolescence and before the Dodge brothers shafted Ford as best as they could.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jhayward 8y ago
When you invested in a company you bought in to both its assets and liabilities. Those include good will, implied commitments, and public or government attitudes formed over decades of operation. You bought the whole history. There is more to be said about the purpose of providing liability shields and corporate rights in exchange for positive contribution to society and the economy; employment is by far the largest benefit society derives from those.

swarnie_ 8y ago

I was in almost the exact same situation as you; young, European and looking for a car maker to round out that part of my portfolio. I opt'ed for VW as it was very cheap after the scandal and had some of the best brands in the business. Why did you pick GM instead?

evandijk70 8y ago
I had two reasons: 1. The scandal itself. I do not want to support a company that has a proven record of not caring about the environment. I understand that this probably applies to all car companies, but VW is the only one that got caught. Getting caught circumventing environmental laws should be something that CEO's are afraid of, and this is an easy way to contribute to that fear. I would not buy a VW for the same reason. 2. I wanted to diversify outside of the EU. The Dutch and German economy are very connected, which would make my portfolio very vulnerable to a recession in either of those two countries.
- ericzawo 8y ago
  How could you possibly say point 1 while also being a big oil shareholder?
  - canadianwriter 8y ago
    Because money.
  - evandijk70 8y ago
    The big oil company, Shell, was included in the ETF for the AEX (Index for the Dutch stock market) I bought, so I did not really have a choice there, other than buying ~20 individual stocks which given my small portfolio would be to expensive due to transaction fees. Moreover, I believe that oil, at least for now, is a necessity for human society and I have no reason to believe that there are other oil companies that are better for the environment than Shell, whereas in the car industry there are plenty of viable alternatives.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

canadianwriter 8y ago

Maybe this will annoy some people but as someone who lives in the GTA, this attitude just sounds like you are saying your investment portfolio is more important than the thousands of people losing their jobs just before christmas. I know there are big important things to discuss here (such as the bailout that we all know isn't being paid back and overall manufacturing) but my first emotional response is a certain finger pointed in your general direction.

all2 8y ago
At the base of things, though, GM is looking to make money. If they lose money by staying in Ontario, they do no one any good (not the taxpayers who foot the bill, not the government that transfers money from the taxpayers to the corporation, not the people being paid by the corporation). The bailout presumes a degree of economic health in the region (and perhaps the country) that may not be there. Being bailed out means the employees are on borrowed time. Money is the bottom line. Failure is necessary. Jobs are a byproduct of consumption and are not a 'right'. If GM pulls out, there will be other places those employees can seek work. If there aren't other places they can get jobs, perhaps Canada should reconsider some of their business regulations (as regulation suppresses numbers of new businesses).
- burkaman 8y ago
  No, society is the bottom line. Money is an imperfect medium for regulating society, and government should step in when it doesn't work.
  - all2 8y ago
    Depending on where you're from, the individual is the bottom line. Money mediates individual exchange. In the US the Fed has a very specific role. Bailing out companies is not actually part of that. In fact, if the Constitution were taken seriously any more, someone would have noticed the bit about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I suppose this is Canada we're talking about, so the above doesn't mean anything in this context.

cptskippy 8y ago

> betting on electric cars and already has an affordable model on the roads that could actually benefit society. GM is hedging their bets at best. Right now the Volt and Bolt are compliance cars that allow the remainder of their fleet to be inefficient and still meets CAFE standards.

ip26 8y ago
The bolt has best in class range, doesn't seem like a throwaway effort in that regard..
- Theodores 8y ago
  How hard can it be though? If a small child manages to wipe his/her own nose then they can be told 'well done!' but it isn't an achievement really. You would not commend a grown adult for keeping their face clean. This GM company has been going for a century and for most of that time their products have shown no effort to be considerate of the environment. Stop-start is not rocket science. Light hybrid vehicles are not rocket science. A small child can see the absurdity of cities gridlocked by slow moving or completely stationary vehicles all of them spewing exhaust for no reason. If not the environment it is a waste of petrol. Stop-start has only came along in the last few years, this could have been marketed to people as the thing to have, who doesn't want a nice quiet car when stuck in traffic? But GM never bothered to do stop-start, something that is a nice engineering challenge, not beyond the realms of impossible. In fairness none of their rivals took this route until the laws made CO2 and other emissions a problem for them. We know from EV cars that going down hills does not mean lots of heavy braking, you can store the energy and save the brakes. It would not have been impossible for GM to implement something similar, even fifty years ago a solution could have been worked out with a mechanical flywheel, maybe using the already present battery as the mass for that. GM - and the others - never even bothered with that. The aerodynamics of a car is another aspect where GM failed. It is not hard and even with no wind tunnel it can be deduced that tucking in the windscreen wipers, door handles and other parts will improve the efficiency. The underside of GM (and other) cars is a joke when it comes to aero. They just never bothered. My background is bicycles where a 4 watt gain is pretty good. A 4 Kg weight saving is epic, the difference between a Tour de France bike and what a mere mortal can afford is 4 Kg. The chrome trim on a GM effort weighs more than my heaviest steel mountain bike. Obviously my heavy mountain bike is actually quicker than any GM product through a congested city and I certainly don't have a V8 motor in my inner core. So where is this Bolt thing really? Are we talking rocket surgery or a kid being applauded because they have wiped their own nose? It is easy to criticise when you haven't built a car yourself, sure the realities of mass manufacturing are hard, but I don't think GM have ever really tried. There may be many jobs and communities dependent on GM but there were many jobs and communities dependent on the predecessor companies that made buggies in the Detroit area. The sooner GM is gone the better able the rest of the automotive trade can get on with providing people with cars more in line with Ford's vision, circa Model T era, before GM came along with their planned obsolescence and before the Dodge brothers shafted Ford as best as they could.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jhayward 8y ago

When you invested in a company you bought in to both its assets and liabilities. Those include good will, implied commitments, and public or government attitudes formed over decades of operation. You bought the whole history. There is more to be said about the purpose of providing liability shields and corporate rights in exchange for positive contribution to society and the economy; employment is by far the largest benefit society derives from those.