Yuku free message boards

dear vwpatterson3,
the government will hold the stock a long time unless they take a loss on the investment. the value of GM peaked at a market value of $60 billion in 2000; for the US and canada to sell their shares at the cost of the investment of $72 billion, the total worth of the company has to be $100 billion! that means that the success of GM has to be huge. while i wish GM and its employees well and hope they are successful for the betterment of the country, i do not see the company being worth $100 billion any time soon.

ralph nader had a piece in last weeks Wall Street Journal where he wants congress involved in the running of the company to be sure GM follows a certain path. politics over economics is his way to run the company and as long as tax dollars are there, he wants it to pursue his agenda reguardless of cost.

the long term best for the country is to have a healthy functioning GM. back last year when the government started pumping in money, i posted that bankruptcy would be the cleanest way to go. if it had been done then, we could have saved time and tax dollars and been were we are today. the current government involvement does not bode well for GM's future.

decisions need to be made on an economic basis and not a politicial one if GM will survive. GM needs to make quality cars at a reasonable price that americians want to buy if it will be successful. that is the goal they should have. americans just may not want to buy the cars that ralph nader wants them to buy (at today's gas prices). the potential for conflict in competing goals is great with government ownership.

now if you were a ford employee or you worked in a honda or toyota plant or you worked for one of the ford, honda or toyota dealerships you might not feel that the government subsidizing GM is good; if the subsidy is large enough to encourage people to buy a GM product, you could even lose your job at ford, honda or toyota! where is the fairness there?

my original call was for a bankruptcy with the government providing the financing for the bankruptcy but not for ownership.

dear vwpatterson3,
i do not see why government "oversight" is needed; in fact, obama claims at this point he does not want to manage the company.

in a normal bankruptcy, they would start from scratch. for example, a better UAW contract would help; the new agreement goes part way there but adds unnecessary burdens such as not allowing GM to import small cars from china that are made in GM factories there; the new agreement does not cut wages, pensions or health benefits for current workers (many companies have cut wages, pensions and health benefits during this downturn).

in normal bankruptcy they could have cut dealers and stopped paying lease payments on closed plants. they could renegotiate all contracts. etc. the creditors could force new management on the company.

the only "oversight" would have been with a trained bankruptcy judge in a regular bankruptcy.

the less the government is involved in the reorganization the better. i want decissions made for the good of the company and on an economic basis and not a political basis. congress has already announced hearings on the closing of dealerships. local pressure on congress has led them to have the hearings so that congresspersons can make grand statements to the public. why have hearings? if the closings are legal, what is the purpose of the hearings? i see the purpose of the hearings to pressure the company to keep some of the dealerships they want to close. so within days of the government take-over congress has already started putting pressure on GM to behave in a certain way for politicial reasons.