4 ms·

Along with the other posters here, I am also "horrified". But isn't this more-or-less the same at most/all other companies? They become old and sclerotic and h

Along with the other posters here, I am also "horrified". But isn't this more-or-less the same at most/all other companies? They become old and sclerotic and hidebound and resistant to change. Aren't most old companies guilty of the equivalent of the "GM nod"? a staple of GM managers, nodding in agreement at steps that should be taken then doing nothing Maybe companies like GM eventually run their course, and should be allowed to die. Maybe we were wrong to bail them out in 2009? Would the country be better off if a new company could take GM's place? But, of course, GM couldn't be replaced "as is". It could only be replaced by something more in tune with the times. It's only a {relatively speaking} tiny company, but Elon Musk and Telsa could be "the next GM". Until Tesla eventually runs its course!

djloche 12y ago
Not one company should be bailed out. If a business fails, those who think they can run that sort of company better should step in and buy the assets and give it a go. In the many or most cases where companies have built what has become core infrastructure, regulations already exist for orderly shutdown and sale of assets without disruption of service. If a company becomes 'too big to fail', this means regulatory capture has already occurred and you have far greater problems to resolve than mere bankruptcy.
- kefka 12y ago
  I disagree. Bail out big companies who fail miserably. THEN do the next step: Take ownership of said company. If We're paying for it, We should control it.
rqebmm 12y ago
>Would the country be better off if a new company could take GM's place? Theoretically this is what happened with the bailout. Everyone made fun of Mary Barra for her "this all happened at the 'old GM', so the 'new GM' can't be responsible" but there's a reason it worked. GM was replaced by a new company: GM.

djloche 12y ago

Not one company should be bailed out. If a business fails, those who think they can run that sort of company better should step in and buy the assets and give it a go. In the many or most cases where companies have built what has become core infrastructure, regulations already exist for orderly shutdown and sale of assets without disruption of service. If a company becomes 'too big to fail', this means regulatory capture has already occurred and you have far greater problems to resolve than mere bankruptcy.

kefka 12y ago
I disagree. Bail out big companies who fail miserably. THEN do the next step: Take ownership of said company. If We're paying for it, We should control it.

rqebmm 12y ago

>Would the country be better off if a new company could take GM's place? Theoretically this is what happened with the bailout. Everyone made fun of Mary Barra for her "this all happened at the 'old GM', so the 'new GM' can't be responsible" but there's a reason it worked. GM was replaced by a new company: GM.