LMS Post Responses to GM Auto Thread

Wow, did this forum post become one long mess.... I basically argued that the fall out affect of letting the Big Three automakers collapse would be a terrific mistake for a number of reasons. I am once again frustrated by the lack of realistic thought that comes from some people in response to these situations. There really is only so much lesson-teaching to corporate America you can do in this situation (it should have been done much earlier, obviously)and I don't believe a single penny should be awarded without serious strings attached. That said, I don't think they should just be scrapped. Perhaps this would be something that could be nationalized and cleaned up...but not scrapped for the sake of teaching stockholders a lesson.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 06:14 PM That would be hideous for the entire country and the world economy, not just a lesson for the "very rich" and Wall Street. There is a lesson to be learned from all of it, but frankly, teaching people a lesson by letting the market fail is far easier a statement than an idea of a balanced penalty. Yes, the corporations will hurt in their coffers, but it will be a pittance compared to all the people who will march to the unemployment lines, all the fixed income seniors watching their small investments die, the college kids relying on their parents, small families barely making it on the jobs in those industries who will then be hitting up unemployment and welfare, etc. etc. etc. The concept of "Oooh, bad corporation, bad investors, you should pay for this, ha ha," is not going to work. Every time I hear someone say this, I seriously question how far they have thought it out because you know what, these industries may be flawed, but a lot of people depend on them for many things, and when I sell out my GM stock and stick that money in McDonald's before Obama jacks up the capital gains tax, I am not going to lose nearly as big as the child who is relying on his father/mother's auto plant health insurance. I'm just goig to bank on the fact that people have to buy cheap value meals to not starve. In reality a move like that would just make the chasm between the top and bottom bigger, readjusted for inflation.

Thursday, November 13, 2008, 01:14 PM
Yes, but you are basically cutting off the nose to spite the face in your theory here. And Geoff is right, this is not sheer money for nothing, it will be loaned and likely with extensive strings. It's like you personally hate corporate America so much that you are willing to see all the fallout happen which is far more of an issue (as referenced in my earlier post: unemployment, shelters overflowing, children without food or health care, etc.) than whether the people at the top get a Christmas bonus this year, which they likely will still give themselves anyway.

Thursday, November 13, 2008, 01:10 PM
Actually, the estimate is more like 3 million jobs directly lost (in the industry) and another 25 million jobs effected as the fallout of the first 3 million....

Thursday, November 13, 2008, 01:49 PM
I agree with your last sentiment. This bailing out of the agriculture industry, then AIG and friends has certainly made a slippery slope of what businesses feel they can ask for and someone needs to be made an example of on how this needs to stop, I just think that it should be a weighed decision more than just a "get bent" to any specific industry/corporation.

At that point, I decided to tap out. I guess I am far too conservative for those in this forum argument, but that's what pays my bills.