GM (Government Motors)

Do people think that GM would go away if they went bankrupt? Do they not think that Toyota or Ford or anyone else would simply fill the void that GM left? Or that GM would just restructure with new management?

Yea there aren't any other car companies in the world to take GM's spot. This is why no other US car company has gone bankrupt before.

>Yea there aren't any other car companies in the world to take GM's spot. This is why no other US car company has gone bankrupt before.

You really believe that a company as large as GM going under wouldn't hurt the economy? If you are a supplier shipping, say, seatbelts and you lose $2 mil in business overnight how are you going to make that up? Another company isn't going to show up and just give you business.

Do you think a town is going to be prosperous when a couple hundred people no longer have a source of good, steady income?

Because they bailed out Chrysler which is much shitter, and went "well, I guess we have to do you too".

no they paid back the loan years ago.

I doubt anyone wanted them with all the bullshit of them still paying "unemployed" UAW employees.

its short sighted people like you who ask stupid questions like OP.

>You really believe that a company as large as GM going under wouldn't hurt the economy?

Sure it would, that's not the question though. The question is why should a failing business be propped up at all? How does spending taxpayer money to keep a business that deserves to fail make any sense?

>Do you think a town is going to be prosperous when a couple hundred people no longer have a source of good, steady income?

Do you think no one in the history of the country has lost jobs before?

This basically. They should have never done that in the '80s

In what way is it short-sighted? Companies fail left and right in every industry that exists.

But it doesn't outsell android user

Perhaps, my point was that the demand for vehicles and services that GM produces does not just vanish worldwide. Ford or any number of other companies will gladly slide into that gap that GM leaves.

>wouldn't hurt the economy

How is spending billions in tax money helping the economy when the company can't manage a lemonade stand?

The big 3 is all Detroit (aka the liberal utopia) has

GM has headquarters in Detroit but Chrysler and Ford don't

>How is spending billions in tax money helping the economy when the company can't manage a lemonade stand?

The unemployed people aren't just numbers- they are people who need jobs to pay their bills and keep from living on the street. Are you alright with effectively punishing them for the mistakes their bosses made? Do you actually understand the size and scope of the automotive industry and the effect the world's largest automaker going under would have? I don't think you do.

The non-interventionist dogma is great when you and your libertarian buddies are jacking off one another and discussing how moist you get when listening to Milton Friedman, but real life is much more complex and painful place than your sheltered middle class upbringing has shown you.

how?
If [car company] has the tooling to produce enough units to satisfy its consumers, where is it going to get the money to expand to fill the gap left by GM?

GM goes under.
>Wave of shake up goes through the industry.
>Companies across the board realize MASSIVE potential.
>Focus on filling gap, construction jobs, massive expansions and innovations trying to outdo competition occur
>The weak die, the strong survive.
>Companies aggressively hire from within industry to outdo competition
>New, better products and occurs.

Pretending like we know how it would have played out is hubristic. We have no fucking idea of what would have happened.

bankrupt =/= going out of business.

it's just transferring ownership to the creditors.

>Are you alright with effectively punishing them for the mistakes their bosses made?

Yes of course. What are unemployment benefits? What is finding a new fucking job like everyone else in the job market who has been fired?

>but real life is much more complex and painful place than your sheltered middle class upbringing has shown you.

Sure, just ignore the fact that a company is mismanaged for many years but shouldn't actually face any consequences for that. It's OK, just do what you like because good ol' mommy government will bail you out :). Don't mind the taxes, there will be plenty more where those came from

Right, companies never expand nor invest.

lol do you leftist clowns believe the british government should keep British Leyland and MG etc afloat now?

>make shitty products
>lose money
>make all sorts of poor business decisions
>lose money
>don't learn anything, beg Uncle Sam for a blank check

>The unemployed people aren't just numbers- they are people who need jobs to pay their bills and keep from living on the street.

Tell me what makes these people special.

Has this not been the case in every industry? Think about how many computer and phone companies have gone under in the past 20 years that were replaced with better products.

I dunno, but I like their old shit.

worse.

the feds sold the stock they got in the bail out, for a loss.

Obama couldn't even make money selling stock of a bankrupt company that was on the rebound.

>Why was GM bailed out?
because 200,000 unemployed people and the loss of a huge corporation and all the taxable income/revenue that brings forth costs more than a bailout loan.

A large part of fords truck and van sales are fleet sales. Companies rather chose these vehicles over GM or Ram because they are usually cheaper. Also GM trucks typically outsell ford trucks, but since sales are split between GMC and Chevy, GM can't say they sell the most.

What about when ford got a bailout from Reagan? Why did they not shut down?

Because if ford collapsed the auto industry and everything that runs it would be screwed. Same in GMs case.

>costs more than a bailout loan

Explain this. The money spent on the bailout was not and will not be recouped. The unemployed would have become employed once the existing manufacturers expanded anyway. Not to mention low-skilled factory plebs could do virtually any job that doesn't require training.

They should've went under.

It pissed me off when they bailed them out. The country lost money.

If they wanted to take another shot at it they could've taken a loan out. You know, one where they'd pay interest.

Still don't know why GMC exists. People say the cost to close a brand is bigger than keeping it running but I have my doubts.

>identical products as Chevy except for very minor trim combinations

What kind of bailout did Ford get? Chrysler was the big bailout of the '80s. Once Fiat gets tired of their bullshit, Chrysler will have to get bailed out again

>forgets that ford took the worlds biggest bailout during the Reagan administration.

Should we have let them sink too?

Think of the poor factory workers user! They're overpaid with very generous benefits for work any high school dropout can do with a few weeks' training. But their interests must be protected because reasons.

Not that poster, but why not? Did someone suggest playing favorites?

>credit crash
>foreclosures everywhere
>banks laying off
>investment firms tanking
>any sort of transportation company is crashing because of fuel prices

it would have been like cutting off a few fingers from someone who already has a big fat tumor

it was a great business decision. the company rebounded and have paid off all of their loans plus interest

>the company rebounded and have paid off all of their loans plus interest

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/

Keep in mind this is a very pro-democrat site before anyone cries political bias

This entire thread implyies playing for favorites.

By his logic we should've let Chrysler and ford sink leaving GM and AMC (possibly) which would struggle severely and possibly also crash after that

>Ford managed to weasel their way out of recalling faulty transmissions
>Government saved them

Not quite the same, but yes, they should've went under.

I like capitalist economies.

>This entire thread implyies playing for favorites.

I don't see that. There were mentions earlier about the Chrysler bailout from a few decades ago. The GM bailout was the most heavily publicized and obviously we were all around to witness it so it sticks out. Not to mention it was just a few years ago.

>By his logic we should've let Chrysler and ford sink leaving GM and AMC (possibly) which would struggle severely and possibly also crash after that

So? Where is the British car industry now? Foreign brands simply took the spot they once held. Would you argue that Triumph and Austin and MG and Rover etc should have been bailed out with every single mistake they made year after year? The companies worth keeping around like Jaguar soon got bought up anyway.

for those of you too lazy to read it

the federal government spent 79 billion to save GM and Chrysler, and recouped 70 billion so they lost 9 billion but originally anticipated to lose 14 billion so they were 5 billion over target

That's the very optimistic version

dcclothesline.com/2015/01/09/much-gm-bailout-really-cost/

good products are just like good posts
no reply's

>The country lost money

People keep saying this and it's literally wrong.

The auto and bank bailouts have both been paid back in full, plus interest. The government profited off of the bailout deals. In addition to preventing massive job loss.

dcclothesline.com/2015/01/09/much-gm-bailout-really-cost/

>Why was GM bailed out?

They were NOT bailed out. The stockbrokers and banks and loan companies were the ones bailed out with FREE money that didn't need repayment. GM got a big loan that was paid off ahead of schedule. The government MADE MONEY on the loan.

Gives a whole new meaning to "imported from detroit"

>complaining about the auto bailout when GM and Chrysler received a fraction of what the banks got with a shitload more conditions

Get your priorities straight, guys.

That's what the Democrats want you to believe

dcclothesline.com/2015/01/09/much-gm-bailout-really-cost/

I agree that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out either. However banks paid back the loan ahead of schedule with interest and were still "fined" on top of that for phantom reasons.

>However banks paid back the loan ahead of schedule with interest and were still "fined" on top of that for phantom reasons.

Keep drink Wall Street's Kool-Aid.

What's even better, the same banks are doing the exact same shit with sub-prime auto loans now

You had me at Democrats, then your bank statement just made you lose all your credibility.

at least they aren't going to ruin the economy on auto loans like they did with home loans

It will destroy the automotive market for about a half decade or so though. The saving grace is, no matter how bad they fuck it up, people are still going to need cars

Is there evidence otherwise? There is evidence that GM in fact did not pay back the loans it received.

Explain. There seems to be a sentiment that the governments are "lying" when it comes to the bank bailouts but the government is telling the "truth" when it comes to the GM bailout

Because socialism

If those billions are less than the amount we would've lost had they gone bankrupt, it's objectively better to just subsidize them, especially since its significantly more orderly and therefore easier for investors to remain confident about investing in America

And obviously GM has something going for it if it's worth so much to the economy, so your lemonstand quip doesn't even apply nerd

Not the case at all numbnuts, the auto industry is already an oligopoly, there's insane cost to entry and there's a minimal reason at best to try to outspend themselves if what they have is already good enough. GM going down is just free money for Ford/Chrysler/etc. but it doesn't mean that they have to expand to capitalize on GM's weakness

As much as your autism wants you to desperately accept this notion of the "the weak should fear the strong", that is not at all how it works on an economic level at the size GM is. There would've definitely been strong economic repercussions, far more than the billions the US Government paid them. Plus didn't they already pay it back plus interest?

>we would've lost had they gone bankrupt

Who is "we"? Do American lives in a socialist shithole where GM is collectively owned?

>it's objectively better to just subsidize them, especially since its significantly more orderly and therefore easier for investors to remain confident about investing in America

lol sure
>hey be confident about investing in American products which aren't actually good and the companies are run by amateurs...but at least the government will rape the citizens' wallets whenever the companies go belly up

lol, gm is one of the biggest car manufacturers in the world with a massive history. do you nerds really think the american government would let an icon die?

Not him, but exactly what part of the globe are you from where local government doesn't help subsidise their local automotive industry when things aren't looking so good?

>doesn't mean that they have to expand to capitalize on GM's weakness

How does this work? You can't simultaneously say that GM is so important for the economy because of the goods and services they provide for so many people and then say that existing companies would leisurely fill the gap without having to expand.

>There would've definitely been strong economic repercussions

That's the whole point. There SHOULD be repercussions for running a monolith into the ground.

>Plus didn't they already pay it back plus interest?

Nope
dcclothesline.com/2015/01/09/much-gm-bailout-really-cost/

Literally Michigan. Plants have shut down or scaled back left and right. Employees move elsewhere or find different work. The sky doesn't fall.

Scaling down is different to avoiding receivership. And is an economic nightmare if a company (not necessarily automotive) the size of GM goes by the wayside.
You'll find throughout recent history, there aren't too many countries with large scale manufacturing industries (automotive included) that haven't passed large bailouts to keep them going, as the bailout is usually cheaper than the cost of said company going under.

I'm not defending GM by any means, but pointing out that this isn't an irregular phenomenon.
Also, GM can't compete.

Daily reminder that GMC was chosen over Pontiac during the bailout.

>large bailouts to keep them going, as the bailout is usually cheaper than the cost of said company going under

Cheaper in what sense? Think about how long the British car industry (Leyland etc) were kept going when they should have been allowed to pass. Eventually they died off anyway and the world didn't end. In fact the only good products left were bought up and produced by foreign companies and other foreign companies covered the gap right away. Aston Martin, Jag, Land Rover are still around.

the ONLY reason why it was saved was because of the vette. The vette is the best car that we mass produce and even then its not the greatest. If the US lost GM we would be the laughing stock of the automotive world because we would have nothing to compete with (although that could have been fords chance to come out with something).

But it was all for not because the fastest car we mass produce grenades under 800 miles.

>Why was GM bailed out?
Because they were already propping up ford through military contracts so bailing them out using that back door wasn't an option.

>We

If they go on unemployment the taxpayer needs to pay a helluva lot more than the bailout (now paid back w interest) cost. It's like you wanted the recession to be far worse out of principle, and that you relish the idea of a drastically weakened economy. Do you even brain dude?

Um, do you not know what 'paid back with interest' means? The bailout money is not gone, it's at work. You would be paying a lot more right now had the bailout not been done, and would have payed less if it was as large as it should have been.

>If they go on unemployment the taxpayer needs to pay a helluva lot more than the bailout

On what basis? My parents have worked for the Big 3 in the past. Once it was time to move on they were equally qualified to work for a number of other companies outside the auto industry. The factory workers could work literally anywhere that requires no effort.

>You would be paying a lot more right now had the bailout not been done,

On what basis?

The money was NOT paid back in the way the Dems want you to think
dcclothesline.com/2015/01/09/much-gm-bailout-really-cost/

>On what basis?
Not him, but the basis of thousands of former employees qualified in the same thing at the same time now competing for work. You don't seem to be able to differentiate "cutbacks" and "liquidation".

Um, show me where blue collar factory workers can go to find similar jobs. You make it sound like there in a huge shortage of manufacturing labor that all the GM employees could have stepped into. There wasn't, especially in 2008.

I was in Janesville wi during those years. GM plant closed, massive layoffs across the area. The Leer (truck toppers) plant took a shit as well as all the other small manufacturering places. Shops did poorly because fewer customers had any money to spend, it was a rough several years for the whole area, huge increase of unemployment.

Tech schools in my area were a bitch to get into from 2007-2009 because they were full of 45+y/o GM workers desperate to get training for some kind of job.

>basis of thousands of former employees qualified in the same thing at the same time now competing for work

What is the basis for the assumption that the cost to the taxpayer is higher?

>high school dropouts
>no qualifications and no skills
>can do any low skill work

good, that's competition

>What is the basis for the assumption
That basis has been posted throughout this thread by multiple posters.
top shitpost m8

>That basis has been posted throughout this thread by multiple posters.

No, every time this is stated and every time I ask and no one says shit. The basis really is the Democrats' word and their word alone.

Why does this matter? If I lose my job, literally no one but myself is wringing their hands over my uncertain future. Are factory workers not adults? Can they not take care of themselves? Why are we treating them like children? You don't even see this attitude among many other blue collar professions either.

you do realize the govt stepped in and dictated what they could do for a while right?

thats why brands like Pontiac were killed despite Gm planning a comeback for it. because the government said they had to cut it because it wasnt profitable.

Right, that is the way small towns go. That's why people leave small towns once jobs dry up.

Is this is a negative situation in some way?

>fired workers seek training for future work

>you do realize the govt stepped in and dictated what they could do for a while right?

Of course, the government decides it can run the company. This is the price they pay for begging for handouts. Imagine the shitshow that would occur if the government took over every airline that went bankrupt every few years.