If GM fails to repay its debt, it should be sold to the workers.

[Scam of God]

Parcel it out as necessary if no co-operative is large enough to assume control. Why not? Shouldn't the taxpayer own his property?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Most companies should be owned by their workforce.

[Sewer]

Most All companies should be owned by their workforce.

[dead0man]

Do the workers have money to buy it?  I think selling parts of it off to the people they owe money too is the better idea....and/or just auctioning everything off to pay off the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.  The entity known as GM certainly has no business continuing on, it failed.  Repeatedly. 

[Alexander Hamilton]

Do the workers have money to buy it?  I think selling parts of it off to the people they owe money too is the better idea....and/or just auctioning everything off to pay off the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.  The entity known as GM certainly has no business continuing on, it failed.  Repeatedly. 

Because of delusional people like you.

[opebo]

Oh please.  Just forgive the debt.

[dead0man]

Do the workers have money to buy it?  I think selling parts of it off to the people they owe money too is the better idea....and/or just auctioning everything off to pay off the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.  The entity known as GM certainly has no business continuing on, it failed.  Repeatedly. 

Because of delusional people like you.

I'm delusional because I was smart enough not to spend my money on sh**tty cars?  If you say so buddy.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Do the workers have money to buy it?  I think selling parts of it off to the people they owe money too is the better idea....and/or just auctioning everything off to pay off the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.  The entity known as GM certainly has no business continuing on, it failed.  Repeatedly. 

Because of delusional people like you.

I'm delusional because I was smart enough not to spend my money on sh**tty cars?  If you say so buddy.

If you bought Japanese, you bought a sh**tty car. Delusional.

[dead0man]

Well that's true if you ignore people that test that kind of thing for a living.

[k-onmmunist]

Most companies should be owned by their workforce.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh please.  Just forgive the debt.

That's what will happen with AIG.......they're never gonna pay that back.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The government should simply send them a letter that says:

Dear GM,

PAY OUR RATE OR LIQUIDATE!

Regards,

Your masters.

[opebo]

Well that's true if you ignore people that test that kind of thing for a living.

The true test of a car is - how well has it performed for its third owner 20 years after it was made.  I know you're probably talking about reviews in auto magazines and consumer reports, that sort of thing, but those things mean very little and those analysts are typically obsessed with 'new technology' and 'sportiness' or 'handling', none of which benefits the average driver.  

This is why an old Oldsmobile is given 'best car I ever owned' reviews by those who actually use it every day, though it was panned by the car press when it was made.  By the same token a high tech new car - whatever nationality - will get good reviews new, but will of course not be reasonable or economical motoring in 20 years.

[Sam Spade]

Why would the workers want to own something that continually loses money?

[Scam of God]

Why would the workers want to own something that continually loses money?

They may not want the entire entity known as General Motors, it's true, but I imagine that many of them would find a better use for components of the company than the original thing ever did.

[Sam Spade]

Why would the workers want to own something that continually loses money?

They may not want the entire entity known as General Motors, it's true, but I imagine that many of them would find a better use for components of the company than the original thing ever did.

What would happen to the company's general liabilities?

[Scam of God]

Why would the workers want to own something that continually loses money?

They may not want the entire entity known as General Motors, it's true, but I imagine that many of them would find a better use for components of the company than the original thing ever did.

What would happen to the company's general liabilities?

Doubtless it would be parceled out along with GM's physical holdings.

[Sam Spade]

Why would the workers want to own something that continually loses money?

They may not want the entire entity known as General Motors, it's true, but I imagine that many of them would find a better use for components of the company than the original thing ever did.

What would happen to the company's general liabilities?

Doubtless it would be parceled out along with GM's physical holdings.

Those liabilities would take out anyone who bought parts (as opposed to the whole) of GM if parceled out.  You lose. 

[Scam of God]

Why would the workers want to own something that continually loses money?

They may not want the entire entity known as General Motors, it's true, but I imagine that many of them would find a better use for components of the company than the original thing ever did.

What would happen to the company's general liabilities?

Doubtless it would be parceled out along with GM's physical holdings.

Those liabilities would take out anyone who bought parts (as opposed to the whole) of GM if parceled out.  You lose.  

Why? If GM could be shrunk enough, then the liabilities would become that much more manageable.

Or, of course, the Fed can simply hold the company in escrow until its debts are fully paid off, and then sell it off.

[Sam Spade]

Why would the workers want to own something that continually loses money?

They may not want the entire entity known as General Motors, it's true, but I imagine that many of them would find a better use for components of the company than the original thing ever did.

What would happen to the company's general liabilities?

Doubtless it would be parceled out along with GM's physical holdings.

Those liabilities would take out anyone who bought parts (as opposed to the whole) of GM if parceled out.  You lose.  

Why? If GM could be shrunk enough, then the liabilities would become that much more manageable.

Or, of course, the Fed can simply hold the company in escrow until its debts are fully paid off, and then sell it off.

I think you're missing something here.  I am, of course, referring in substantial part, to GMs future pension and health care liabilities which are far greater, many times over, than the net value of the company.

Any person who owned any part of GM and was saddled with any part of those liabilities would go under immediately without major infusions of capital from outside sources.

Of course, in bankruptcy, the pension and health care liabilities can be changed, but then said worker-owners would have to receive enough capital to reorganize (not always the easiest thing to do).

What I'm getting at is that your idea doesn't work unless you move GM's pension and health care liabilities onto the federal government, make sure said workers are able to receive capital infusions to develop and move the company forward, and require said workers receive major benefits and salary cuts.  Unless you do the bankruptcy option above, which is quite problematic.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well that's true if you ignore people that test that kind of thing for a living.

The true test of a car is - how well has it performed for its third owner 20 years after it was made.  I know you're probably talking about reviews in auto magazines and consumer reports, that sort of thing, but those things mean very little and those analysts are typically obsessed with 'new technology' and 'sportiness' or 'handling', none of which benefits the average driver.  

This is why an old Oldsmobile is given 'best car I ever owned' reviews by those who actually use it every day, though it was panned by the car press when it was made.  By the same token a high tech new car - whatever nationality - will get good reviews new, but will of course not be reasonable or economical motoring in 20 years.

 
     I read Consumer Reports regularly back in 2001/2002, & they had ratings on the reliability of cars. Generally speaking, Japanese cars received the best reliability ratings while American cars received the worst ones.

     In fact, I remember a column from the 2002 auto guide issue that rated how many problems 100 cars of the same make could expect within three years. I don't think any American brand outperformed any Japanese brand, though there might have been one.

[dead0man]

Well that's true if you ignore people that test that kind of thing for a living.

The true test of a car is - how well has it performed for its third owner 20 years after it was made.  I know you're probably talking about reviews in auto magazines and consumer reports, that sort of thing, but those things mean very little and those analysts are typically obsessed with 'new technology' and 'sportiness' or 'handling', none of which benefits the average driver. 

Yes because Consumer Reports cares about "handling" and "sportiness".  Careful, your ignorance is showing again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

cite?ahahahhahah

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Economic?  Really?  So a high tech car made in 1989 is less economical than the cars you like?  Seriously?  A high tech car made in 1989, is less reasonable than a 77 Olds Cutlass?

And why would the true test of a car be how it holds up 20 years later?  Wouldn't how it holds up for those 20 years be just as important?  How comfortable, how much it was in the shop, how much gas it drank in that time would all be more important than it's status 20 years after it was built.  And that's certainly not say I think a 20 year old mid 70s American car would be in better shape than a late 80s Japanese car.  There is a damn good reason you see more '83 Civics than you do '83 Impallas.

[Torie]

A clean old fashioned bankruptcy should have been done long ago. The assets are sold off, and the creditors paid in the order prescribed by law. This special treatment given to auto companies may be understandable from a political standpoint, but cannot in my view be justified from an economic  standpoint, and is fundamentally unfair to the populace at large to boot.

[dead0man]

A clean old fashioned bankruptcy should have been done long ago. The assets are sold off, and the creditors paid in the order prescribed by law. This special treatment given to auto companies may be understandable from a political standpoint, but cannot in my view be justified from an economic  standpoint, and is fundamentally unfair to the populace at large to boot.

That's what I was trying to say, thank you.

[dead0man]

     In fact, I remember a column from the 2002 auto guide issue that rated how many problems 100 cars of the same make could expect within three years. I don't think any American brand outperformed any Japanese brand, though there might have been one.

From JD Power overall quality 2009

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So 3 of the top 5 are Japanese/Korean and 5 of the top 10, whereas only 3 of the top 10 are American.  1 Jap in the bottom 10 vs 4 Americans.  Buick was doing a lot better for awhile but they seem to have fallen back in the pack.  Benz was doing rather poorly for awhile and they seem to have once again figured out to put a car together.  Also, I buy Mazdas for the fun, not for the quality (or efficiency).