Two things I take issue with.

The measure that happened today was supposed to be a short-term action with likely long-term negative consequences. It's a bit of a conflict with what you wrote. Additionally, even the average CEO doesn't generally have free reign to change everything they want. Their vision needs to coincide with the board and the vision of the most influential stakeholders.

Second, the *market* should dictate the direction a company goes, not an altruistic goal of making the world better. While GM is taking the noble road, its competitors will come underneath and take the market that does exist right out from under them.

I have to say though, that even if you don't agree with the "Marxist" (lol) stuff going on, there is a point at which the Government does feel the responsibility to protect a majority of its populace from the economic damage potentially caused by the poor performance of such a tremendous corporation.

Just saying...maybe not everything the government does is nefarious.

Nope. To a SMALL degree in a regulated industry, but we're not talking the airlines here (which is another rant entirely in terms of government interference).



Just inadequate.

that's great in theory, but the market is what caused this problem and GM's inability to react. letting the market play out naturally would have a substantially negative effect on our national economy and so some interference is going to be necessary. i wish better action had been taken a year ago before it was as bad as it is now, but wishes don't do the dishes.

_________________

You're exhibiting a significant lack of understanding of what "the market" is. The market is driven by business and consumer demand, and the government cannot control that - at all. The Market didn't cause GMs inability to react, GM caused GMs inability to react. Most other major auto makers, while hurting, don't seem to have the same issues adapting to the market - certainly not to the same extent.

Yes but, according to the last quarterly earnings announcement, GM employs 235,000 people in every major region of the world, more than half of which are employed in America. That only includes people who receive their checks directly from GM. According to a message to dealers from GM's corporate website, they currently have a dealership network of 6246 across the country. If the average dealership employs 50 people (probably a conservative estimate), that's another 312,300 unemployed to go along with the 117,500 new jobless Americans that came about by the market letting GM shut its doors.

I understand "the market," despite your condescension. What I don't understand is how you think "the market" creating 430,000 unemployed people in a day is a good thing. Hey, I wish GM would have un-fucked itself years ago, too, and I don't like the way the government is interfering and don't think it will be a lasting solution unless GM is under government control for a decade, but I also don't think that allowing the lights to go off and deliver a significant blow to the US economy because "hey that's the market" is a viable option. They're doing something. Maybe it's not what is absolutely right, but please explain to me how the alternative is what is absolutely right.

Or just go ahead and parrot the same thing that everyone else has said for the last two pages without saying anything new.

_________________

I'm specifically NOT arguing that we should let GM fail. You're ignoring that, completely. I'm arguing that the government having a significant longterm ownership stake in one of the largest companies in the world is a bad thing.

Here are some other thoughts on things that could be done without letting it fail. They may be terrible, but they seem more reasonable to me.

1) Split each carmaker into individual companies and sell them off. Sink or swim on your own. Continue pouring money into the company to prop it up until they can give it a good 'ol college try. This rather nicely solves the whole "it's too big to fail" if it ever happens in the future, btw. You realize that is what the government is already doing with the non-core brands like Hummer, Saturn, etc. Hummer announced sale today.

2) Do everything that we're doing without the US govt having an ownership stake in the company. Continue to pour money into GM and force it to go bankrupt, with lots of oversight but no ownership stake.

My problem is that no one is articulating, either here or the Obama admin itself - why the US govt OWNING GM is a good thing. I see only bad things, and no one has refuted them. The biggest two downsides being that I think it's a terrible investment and that the conflicts of interest are huge.

I copied your #2 with this quote because it's relavent to the comment I am going to make to that last paragraph.

Your suggestion #2 says to "keep pouring money" into the company, but receive nothing from it. I believe they included an ownership stake purely as a way to try to recoup some of the money at a future date. I believe Obama when he says (repeatedly) that it is not a long term stake, that as soon as the company is stable they will sell their stake to recoup the money and be done with it.

I hope we do, Fribur. I don't see it happening that way, but I hope we do. Besides, presumably we're getting the "save hundreds of thousands of jobs" out of it, rather than a direct ROI.

Besides, there are a ton of things we've poured money into and will receive nothing from. AIG, for example.

David Brooks made some good points in the NYT.. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/opini ... ef=opinion I wish I could find someone who likes the deal. RCP is full of editorials and columns of people who hate it, including liberals who rarely criticize Obama's actions.

I'm inclined to agree. I would say the government has a bad track record of letting go of programs once they are started.. but the reality is they have NO track record of letting programs go.

If there were a bill of some sort with language stating the company would be sold after a certain date, profitability factor or something else, I might feel differently.

Well, damn. That didn't even last a week:

Barney Frank convinces GM CEO to keep his district's plant open
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/06 ... o-meeting/

About the only example I have is when Reagan spun the government-controlled Conrail off into a private corporation back in the '80s. That may well be the only time government has ever let go of anything that was in its grip.

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

The government let go of five teachers in my district this year.