Should We Nationalize GM ?

[kj]

I wonder if GM failed, and spawned a ton of startups with new ideas,etc., if that might help get us back on the right track. Of course, the gov't could encourage these startups in whatever way. GM's out of ideas, and I don't know that they'll ever be able to shake the stigma they've acquired/earned. Maybe the gov't could encourage industry to look at the more general "tranportation" issue, rather than just cars, too. We're lacking in the "great ideas" department, and I think maybe going through some rough times might be the only way. kj.

[Gutenberg]

Ooooo, yeah, cbelt3. Careful about that. Maryland deregulated itself right into a near revolt. Essentially the Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. sold all the power from its nuclear generator that had been paid for by the ratepayers and then bought electricity from the grid at a much higher price. BG&E hosed the ratepayers but its holding company, Constellation Energy, made a mint which it then squandered in derivatives. Warren Buffett owns the whole shebang now. Mayo Shattuck (the CEO) was lucky he wasn't tarred, feathered and set on fire. He has his millions to keep him warm though.

[Mac1337]

Gutenberg wrote:
By all means nationalize GM. Get responsible people for the board. I think I would start with Al Gore and Warren Buffett.

They can start their own car company NOW. What are they waiting for? A cushy government job perhaps?

[$tevie]

It's obvious we can't let the automobile companies die. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

I think it is legit to question the need for behemoth vehicles. Maybe it got too heated, but they are a terrible idea that people have simply convinced themselves is necessary.

And kj, I am sorry because you did talk to me like an adult and I ignored it. Thank you for that.

[Gutenberg]

Sorry, I must have been confused. I have no idea how I could have concluded that "Uh, I don't want to interrupt the shared man-hate session here," implied hatred of men. Silly me.

[Black Landlord]

billb wrote:
The government has done so well with social security and health care, they should apply all that technique and expertise to building and designing cars.

Car assemblers should have all union benefits PLUS tenure.


Every auto should come with a government subsidized driver to control miles driven and fuel economy.
Nationalized auto insurance, too.

I'm with billb here.

[Black Landlord]

kj wrote:
[quote=Gutenberg]
What the government SHOULD do to pay for all this is to tax the living daylights out of trucks for anything but farm and commercial use. And kill the Hummer division. Men should find another method to prove their sexual worth, like raking the leaves and finishing the weatherstripping.

Uh, I don't want to interrupt the shared man-hate session here, but I see a lot of women driving huge SUV's, Pickups, and even Hummers. Penis-envy? kj.
I'm with kj here.

[Black Landlord]

lafinfil wrote:
Ummmm - Did anyone actually read the article ?

Many if not all of the arguments were addressed

Wait . . . do what now?

[Black Landlord]

kj wrote:
[quote=Gutenberg]
You concluded that I hate men based on that statement? Awfully sensitive of you.

I didn't say you hate men. Your statement was false, though.

Stevie, you seem to be choosing to ignore the serious points I made.

I read the article, and a bunch of other blogs on the same subject. I don't think they address my point that well. There have been green cars available, and not everybody wants them. I don't see how requiring GM to make green cars is going to save them. Not only do they need to make green cars that are as good as the alternatives, but they have to make green cars that people percieve as being as good. Nationalizing won't do anything to improve their ability to do this. And toyota/honda/etc. will continue to make non-green cars that people will buy instead of the green gm cars. A camry/accord is not green.

Al Gore is going to help GM? Now that is a frickin' joke. He definitely has his hand on the pulse of the auto-buying public. kj.
The only thing that can possibly be green about any car is the paint color. Please stop using "green" and "car" together.

[karsen]

$tevie wrote:
It's obvious we can't let the automobile companies die.

Why not?

It's a noble idea to rescue a failing company and save thousands of jobs. Nobody wants to see people become unemployed. But when does a company become too big, or too important, or too historic to be allowed to fail in a free market society?

Would it be wrong if the government stepped in to bail out the world's largest producer of buggy whips? Nobody is buying those buggy whips, and the buggy whip maker refuses to change with the times. But man, they have so many employees, and they've been in business for over 100 years. They shouldn't be allowed to die, the government should give them a cash infusion until sales pick back up.

Should any companies be allowed to fail? What about a company with only 1,000 employees? 100? 10? My business with 1 employee is kind of slow, should I be allowed to fail? What companies do you feel should be allowed to die? Where do you draw the line? If no line is drawn rest assured that the line of companies asking for bailouts will NEVER end.

A company that fails will always be replaced if the market demands it. If the market can't support it then a company will ultimately fail no matter how many billions of dollars you throw at it.

But the companies will pay our government back, with interest! It's a money making opportunity! If it was such a sure thing then banks and investment groups would be lining up to give money, that's how it works. The fact that no one but our government is stepping up to the plate should give you some indication just how risky this whole proposition is.

Business is a gamble. It doesn't always work out; it's not supposed to always work out. Giving billions (perhaps trillions) to failing companies is even more of a gamble. I don't think our government should be gambling with our money. We are gambling with our children's future and printing Monopoly money at the risk of super inflation, the results of which are potentially more devastating than letting some mismanaged companies die.