Why is this worse than Ronald Raygun firing all the air traffic controllers and replacing them with inexperienced non-unionized new hires?  Actually Obama is well within his rights.  We are now the major shareholders of GM and Obama holds our proxy votes.

ah297900 wrote:

And what is the difference between "nationalizing" a bank and putting it "in receivership" when it fails, as we've been doing to banks for 70+ years? And why is it that now, for the first time since the thirties, people are saying it's bad when the FDIC does this? No one (since the Depression) has ever had a problem with the government taking over a failing bank, breaking it down and selling it in an orderly fashion, which has been happening for decades.

Because typically the FDIC has identified another bank as a buyer for the troubled bank and had them on-line before it even announces the failure of an FDIC insured bank. The FDIC steps in long enough to make up the difference between assets and insured assets (which it often never has to add money to by raiding other accounts that are over the magic $250k limit to make up the shortfall), then steps back out of the picture quickly. Often the FDIC only "owns" the failed bank for a single day.

But with so many banks in the shitter and their assets smelling worse than 10 Parisians locked in a porta-potty in July, there aren't any buyers except at prices so depressed that the FDIC can't afford to put enough money in to sweeten the pot.

The FDIC actually has funds on hand equal to something so minuscule, like 0.001% of insured assets, that they are nothing but a facilitator at this point. They can't "save" anyone.

I've met Rick, and he's a an ok guy.  But results speak for themselves and GM's performance of the last four years has been miserable at best.   Sorry to see him go but his is paid to perform.

Emmeran wrote:

I've met Rick, and he's a an ok guy.  But results speak for themselves and GM's performance of the last four years has been miserable at best.   Sorry to see him go but his is paid to perform.

The poor guy only got twenty three million in severance pay.  I don't know how he will manage.

fnord wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

I've met Rick, and he's a an ok guy.  But results speak for themselves and GM's performance of the last four years has been miserable at best.   Sorry to see him go but his is paid to perform.

The poor guy only got twenty three million in severance pay.  I don't know how he will manage.

Yeah that sucks, but if he wanted to make real money he should have learned how to hit a baseball instead of focusing on education and career.

Zookeeper wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

I don't like the government playing such a big hand in the car industry, but it's a damn sight better than having no car industry at all.

Bah.  The main think that has kept a new US auto maker from emerging has historically been the current US auto makers.  Even if they did all fold (unlikely) that would finally open the market up for new innovators to emerge in the long run.

I am interested in the concept of breaking up some of the brands.  GM spinning off Cadillac, Chrysler spinning off Dodge, etc


I think we've all come to understand that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better.