Should We Nationalize GM ?

[lafinfil]

I just listened to an interesting interview with Dan Neil, the LA Times automotive columnist, on NPR's "Day to Day"
The interview was based on his column from todays issue, where he proposes the nationalization of GM.

His premise was that rather than bail them out with loans and let the current management continue,
that we (the taxpayers) should just buy the company (estimated 32 billion) and use the opportunity
to start building the hight efficiency types of autos that the country needs right now.

He addresses the socialism aspect by pointing out that by bailing them out we are pretty much doing the same
except we (taxpayers) will not have any control over the management. He proposes that once
it has been turned around that the comapany can be sold at a profit.

His argument is also since the Big Three are dealing with legacy cost in terms of healthcare and retirement
that they are at a disadvantage when competing with Japanese companies which generously subsidizes those cost
(not including American built I assume)

Interesting idea - http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/comm...3298.story

[DevoBill]

Yes by all means do it. I cant wait for the 2010 model.

[OWC Jamie]

<< Must not post pic of government issued auto.>>
refrain
refrain
refrain
refrain
refrain

[lafinfil]

OK - so the two Bills think that it is a better idea to

A - Give them the money with no strings attached and give them more in about 3 months

B - Let them file for bankruptcy

C - Go under

D - Other (Please supply alternative idea)

[DevoBill]

B

[$tevie]

Who said the government is going to run the company or design the cars? You guys are reacting without thinking.

We are handing over an enormous amount of money anyhow, at least this way we might see a profit when -- as clearly stated above which you seem to have totally ignored -- we sell the corporation down the road when it has become profitable again.

If you ask me, we ought to nationalize healthcare. That is one thing that cripples our car manufacturers when competing with foreign manufacturers. That and the fact that other countries subsidize their car companies.

The U.S. is no longer in a position to call the shots in the global economy. There has to be some give and take here regarding this absurd paranoia about "creeping socialism" or we are going to go completely down the crapper. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks, it's broke and we have to fix it.

[$tevie]

Letting the car companies go bankrupt is a right wing wet dream because they see it as the beginning of the end of the unions. And they don't care how many non-union people it takes out with them.

[lafinfil]

DevoBill wrote:
B

Fair enough - free market and all

So would you personally buy a new car from a company that is in bankruptcy ?

[OWC Jamie]

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.

[the_poochies]

lafinfil wrote:
I just listened to an interesting interview with Dan Neil, the LA Times automotive columnist, on NPR's "Day to Day"
The interview was based on his column from todays issue, where he proposes the nationalization of GM.

His premise was that rather than bail them out with loans and let the current management continue,
that we (the taxpayers) should just buy the company (estimated 32 billion) and use the opportunity
to start building the hight efficiency types of autos that the country needs right now.

He addresses the socialism aspect by pointing out that by bailing them out we are pretty much doing the same
except we (taxpayers) will not have any control over the management. He proposes that once
it has been turned around that the comapany can be sold at a profit.

This was done by the federal government over 30 years ago when it took over bankrupt northeastern railroads and created Conrail. Conrail went public with its stock in the 1980s after becoming profitable, netting taxpayers a nice sum of dough.

lafinfil wrote: His argument is also since the Big Three are dealing with legacy cost in terms of healthcare and retirement
that they are at a disadvantage when competing with Japanese companies which generously subsidizes those cost
(not including American built I assume)
Interesting idea - http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/comm...3298.story

I know that GM already turned over the administration of pension and healthcare costs for its retirees to the UAW.