Hmmm, maybe that government bailout wasn’t such a great idea. Sucks to be you GM!

Well this is good news. GM may be able to hire from outside.

Love government talk though. No one has “formally” appealed the ruling. Probably means they have asked but have not sent in the lawyers?

But what the heck does lateral mean?

good…

I still can’t believe that we have a position called “pay czar” here in the United States of America. Lenin must be pleased. I know Chavez is.

i think lateral in this context may mean hire someone coming from a similar or higher position at another company

What a Jackass! I just can’t make it on only $500,000 a year. That is a hell of alot more than unemployment pays, which is were these guys would be without the Govt. $500,000 is also 10x the average salary in this country. I can’t see a company running on Govt. money paying thier employees more than the president of the United States.

- Pay your taxes GM needs the cash

nazenail, you’d rather have companies that require government funds to continue to exist to pay their executives billions of dollars? how generous of you! how about you just double your tax bill this coming year so you can feed more money into the pockets of executives of would-be failed companies, since you seem so cool with this concept…

what he means by lateral, in my interpretation, is that if an executive of another company expresses interest a job at GM (like the CFO position) and that guy is paid X, and X is higher than the current limit for executives, the pay czar will consider paying the guy X dollars on a case-by-case basis…but GM won’t be able to offer him X+millions more in order to lure him to GM…that way the move is lateral…sideways with no increase in salary, but over the pay restriction…

… of course you’re assuming there is someone out there who would willingly slide over to the sh*tstorm that is GM for the same money as they’re making now. Good luck with that program.

It is very difficult to run competitive government managed company. Someone should look into history of British Leyland before signing up for this. When Feinderg & Co will be gone (3 years and 2 months) there will be a lot of undoing to do.

I wouldn’t take a job at GM for the same money I make now. So the Govt is politly telling them to pound sand. Just like GM does when a customer has a problem with one of their POS cars.

@NoMoreGM4Me, they did not tell me to pound sand, I was told to fack myself. But it was “old” GM, government employees are much more polite: look at NMOFGM!

Re: leftwingagenda,

Yeah, I’m sure there are executives just lined up from non-failed companies that want to work for Government Motors, for the same money they’re making now. Probably just knocking down their doors!
I mean, who wouldn’t want to be in the news as the “greedy bastard” who is having his potential salary “considered by the pay czar”? Then he could always look forward to having his salary cut in half by the same Obama stooge that “approved” his “lateral move”. Chances are, these executives would rather work for less money for some other company, not run by government fiat. That’s the point of the Chairman’s statement, that it’s becoming difficult for them to hire competitively due to the pay restrictions.

Nice misinterpretation of ‘Nazenail’s’ comment. If you’re too ignorant to get his point, which I doubt, let me interpret. He’s was opposed to the the bailout in the first place. Let GM go into bankruptcy, restructure, and emerge under new leadership(not chosen by the govt & unions). Then they could control their own destiny, pay whatever was necessary to attract the best people, and succeed or fail based on their own decisions. They could just fail for all I care, it would have been better than what’s happening now. Instead, they were bailed out with OUR money!! That sucks, we all get that, but what’s even worse is the govt now meddling in every decision GM makes, including making sure that GM has a hard time getting good people to work towards turning the company around. You see, we hate to see OUR tax dollars wasted on bailouts for failed companies, but it’s even more aggravating to watch the govt then guarantee the failure of those companies by driving them into the ground with strangling “oversight”. Then OUR tax dollars have been completely wasted! There’s no bailout money paid back after GM fails again, due to government meddling in the affairs of their potential recovery! Do you not get THAT !?! Do you think the government knows better how to restore this company to profitability? The same government that does nothing but waste, mismanage, or flat out lose more money every year than what’s been spent on GM??
Is that what you think?? Because if you do, you’re more ignorant than anyone gives you the credit for.

@Nazenail, Kenneth Feinberg’s title is actually “Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation” ; Stop watching so much Fox News and getting brainwashed by the media!!!!!! Look it up yourself if you don’t believe me.

@LLN; can we stay away from the incorrect media jargon the continues to brainwash people like Nazenail; LLN it’s “Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation” not Pay Czar. Pay Czar is a made up title much like “head honcho”!

Borat, I heard my 1985 Cavalier would be much better than a 1975 vega, but it was a POS. Then I had a 1996 Blazer, which with eleven years of improvement would certainly be better than that Cavalier. However due to Gasket eating Dexcool it needed an Engine, and Radiator(Completely Clogged temp gauge read normal though), with 60000 miles. Despite the fact there were Service Bullitens about the problem they offered nothing for my troubles. I’m not sure if I was supposed to pound sand or f*ck myself. I might have done both. Plus I can’t even tell you how many times I replaced the undersized brake pads and ball joints, I lost count. But your right it’s the New GM I’m sure its not like that anymore. Besided look at the bangup job the British Government did with British Leyland, and the fantastic job our government has done with Govt entities like Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac. This is sure to be a success. Anyway I drive a Nissan now, which was made in the US with higher domestic content than many GM vehicles. The best thing is I just have to change the oil.

GM- Do yourself a favor buy something else.

Oh yeah, ‘Special Master’ sounds so much more free market than ‘Pay Czar’. You just keep your head… wherever it’s at with all the talking points and “media corrections” passed down from on high.

No need to look it up, who would make up a title like ‘Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation’, hoping that it would sound better than ‘Pay Czar’.

The bigger picture is that GM failed in its Talent Management and Succession Planning clearly demonstrating that knew nothing about running a major corporation. GM is a failed company, period. The chances of GM ever becoming what it was are very,very, very slim. GM is undergoing a form of euthanasia (for GM, but not for the taxpayer who is having to watch as their tax dollars disappear). Had it undergone a proper bankruptcy versus this subsidized death then might have been a bit different, but the fact still remains–GM is a failed company, period.

testing

During the B**H Administration Ken Feinberg was appointed “Special Master of the U.S. Government’s September || th Victim Compensation Fund”. When B**H does it it’s okay but when O***a does it it’s non-free market. Double standard much?

Dont these execs know they need to accept lower pay for the good of the proletariat?

We need a Proletariat Czar. Oh wait – we already have one at 1600 Penn. Ave.

LWA – these companies need to go bankrupt and not feed on the public teat. A loan? Withing limits, fine, but public ownership? FAIL. You still continue to love the govt though because you are removed from reality. Porkulous was FAIL, Social Security is becoming FAIL, Medicare is FAIL, Obamacare will FAIL, everything large-scale the govt undertakes is FAIL, so you must worship failure.

@Smegley, Is the Postal Service a FAIL? How about the IRS, is that a FAIL? How about the Mint, people who print our money, is that a FAIL? How about the US military is that a FAIL? Yes it’s true that many government programs have failed yet many have succeeded. Let’s not look at the world through rose colored glasses.

I’m still waiting for Bg357 to respond to my comment!

If GM didn’t like the idea of executive pay cuts, then they could’ve used some common sense, and NOT ACCEPT the government-assisted loans in the first place.

Oh, what? They didn’t think there was going to be certain restrictions attached on those bailout loans like capping executive pay? Are they that gullible to think that it was an absolute freebie?

Those asswipes should be lucky they’re making $500k a year, while all of their main workers are getting laid off left and right. All because GM doesn’t know how to hire talent and make good business propositions.

I would not be anxious on .357 repartee, may leave a nasty exit cavity in the body

Actually Zesty the czar title is something that the White House uses as well. In fact, go ahead and look up the sound bites of President Obama himself describing them as czars.

Zesty:

I typically don’t respond to drivel, but I guess I’ll make an exception in your case. Sometimes you need to help the handicapped.

Yes, the USPS is an EPIC FAIL! They raise rates constantly, lose money every year, and provide lousy service, all while presiding over a government imposed monopoly. The Mint? You mean the US Treasury, that’s currently printing money like it’s toilet paper? The Treasury that is devaluing our currency at an alarming rate? That FAILURE?
You dare bring up the US Military? It’s true that the US Military is an incomparable fighting force, but Obama is just getting started on destroying our military, right after he destroys our economy, healthcare, and GM. He’s a busy guy, give him some time.
Maybe YOU shouldn’t look at the government through ‘rose colored glasses’! Almost everything the government touchs is either destroyed or made worse, all while spending far more of OUR money than is necessary.

As for Ken Feinberg, I could care less who the guy is, I’m more concerned with what he’s doing. I don’t know if he did a good job with the 9/11 VCF or not, nor do I care. What I do know is that he is currently instrumental in the slow death of GM, preventing any chance of their possible(even though it’s a long-shot) recovery. If they don’t recover, all OUR tax money will be wasted. Sounds like a Govt plan!

Zesty, the postal service is bankrupt and requires subsidies (aka FAIL), the IRS is a den of thieves with legal authority to steal, the Mint loses money and is subsidized by taxpayers (aka FAIL), and the military is actually the height of inefficiency however when it comes to national defense efficiency is secondary.

Now, aside for national defense, efficiency is primary for the economy to thrive. The US government is among the least efficient organizations in the world. IOW the private market virtually ALWAYS trumps it. That means increased government involvement in the economy decrease efficiency. You may think I look at it thru rose colored glasses, but you are blind as a bat if you dont know this stuff. Well, you could just be stupid like many govt worshippers are, but I dont think you are.

I don’t expect my boss to pay me more than he pays himself. I doubt Obama is going to pay anyone more than he pays himself. Especially the guys that bankrupted their employeer. Those that came on after the bailout know the deal. So quit bitchin.

- GM the slow road to oblivion

@leftwingagenda

As Bg357 pointed out, I don’t think the government should dictate wages any more than they should be giving/lending/bailing out failed businesses. All of these ridiculous banks, insurance companies, and auto manufacturers should be allowed to fail. No new ideas, talent, people, or opportunities will arise if the old an inefficient are being supported by federal funds.

The Bush Administration was a fail. The Hussein Clown Posse (Obama administration) is building on Bush’s legacy but with bigger debts, more wars, more troops, and more bailouts.

I will concede that the government is not as efficient as many private entities. But I claim victory on the Ken Feinberg Czar issue! My consolation prize!

@ Mark Kleis; They are some dopey people in the White House don’t make them your role model!

@Zesty, Not sure I follow… are you calling Obama dopey? Because anything else doesn’t make sense in reference to what I said. Also, you claim victory about Feinberg? Maybe you missed the part where OBAMA himself used the title of “czar” for his czars.

bg357, you’re putting a lot of words in nazenail’s mouth…like the following…

you seem to be of the belief that without the bailout, gm could’ve entered bankruptcy and emerged a streamlined corporation…that, to my knowledge, is fiction…gm was facing liquidation…there was no “restructuring without supplemental funds” option…it was dissolve or bailout, that was it…

i also strongly disagree we are worse off now than if gm had failed…if gm had failed we would’ve had hundreds of thousands of additional jobs lost during a critically vulnerable time for the US economy, billions more dollars in unemployment bailouts, the inevitable wave of part supplier bankruptcies (which would affect all the other auto manufacturers) and many other bad things…you seem to think that the picture i just painted is a better world than one with a bailed out gm…i disagree…

i generally think the people that say we’d be better off having had gm fail really haven’t thought about the consequences of that decision, and nobody really provides any proof or theory on how we’d be better off…they just say “they should’ve let gm fail” and yet have no real rationale as to why, except for the fact they are philosophically opposed to injecting federal dollars into a company…that, however, seems to be the only barrier, and it’s not a practical barrier, it’s an emotional one…

where the rubber meets the road: tempering job losses during a major bout of economic weakness, the bailout has in fact helped…

and then there’s the chance that the loans gm has taken out will be repaid (which is in fact a headline on LLN currently, the paying of 2.2B to opel)…just like the loans to chrysler years ago (which the government MADE MONEY ON) these loans may be repaid…you all seem to believe it’s doomed to failure, but don’t provide any evidence why…

this is why i will fight you on this point until you’re proven right and i’m proven wrong, or vice versa…you have no factual evidence to support your case…only conjecture…

now, nobody can predict the future, but you all seem to be 100% sure that gm is going to fail…i think there’s evidence to the contrary (like being the #1 US manufacturer in the largest (and growing) automobile market on the planet – china)…there is a chance for gm to restructure and streamline and become profitable and pay off the loans…and when that happens, the bailout circle will be complete and your arguments will have been proven wrong…

until then, we’ll see…

@ Mark Kleis, Yes I’m calling some of the people working for Obama Dopes! Therefore, if (even though you have provided no evidence) Obama calls them Czars them Obama is a dope just like you because the man’s title is “Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation”. This “Special Master” title was in place during B**H. It’s like saying everyone calls Micheal Jackson, Jacko so that’s his name…………..no his name is Micheal Jackson. If I call you Ricky does that become your name? Nope! I’m not sure what you’re arguing here!

Testing BUSH

czar is not a formal job title…take the “drug czar”, for example…the “drug czar” is the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy…any reference to “czar” is informal in nature…the President may use the term, but it is not an official title…

I don’t know what the big deal is about ‘Czar’, everyone knows it’s an informal title. The only reason it’s become an issue at all is because the WhiteHouse got their shorts in a bunch when it started to become derogatory. The history of Czars started to become “inconvenient” when people realized how this administration was going to rule.

i don’t agree with the last bit, of course…but i do find it funny that one set of people accuse the obama administration of not changing enough with respect to the former bush administration, and yet others feel there has been some polarizing 180 degree swing in policy that’s incredibly offensive to their sensibilities…both positions can’t be correct…yet you can find groups of people that believe their own position wholeheartedly…

leftwingagenda,

It IS odd how perceptions differ. IMO, there is a large group of people in the middle, who don’t pay close attention to what’s going on and just think he’s a center-left democrat.
The far left progressives know what he is, but they’re upset that he’s not doing everything they want immediately. They wanted the wars shut down, gitmo closed, healthcare, cap&tax, cardcheck, etc. done already. They’re also upset that he’s “bailing out Wall Street” and so forth. They’ve always been in some kind of dream world, oblivious to the realities of the world and the limitations of even this president.
On the right, there are basically two groups. Those who aren’t yet seeing the big picture and just think he’s going to be similar to Clinton, without the sex scandals. That group is slowly giving way to those who are paying close attention and connecting the dots on this president and the ultra-radical group he’s brought into his administration. Obviously, we differ on what the situation really is, but it’s somewhat understandable how people of such different ideological views, or levels of engagement, would assess the same circumstances.

leftwingagenda,

Regarding your previous post (4:30pm), I’ll let Nazenail decide if I put too many words in his mouth. He seemed to agree with my interpretation in his subsequent post.
Your analysis is thoughtful, and may not be entirely inaccurate, but I do see it a bit differently.
For starters, I don’t know that GM would have been liquidated and neither do you, I believe that was simply a scare tactic that was used to try to push through the takeover plan. There were many people in the know who felt that GM _could_ restructure through bankruptcy and emerge intact, but those people weren’t even given a place at the table when these decisions were made.

I’m not disputing the fact that it would have been very detrimental to the economy if GM had in fact completely failed, but I don’t believe that what we have now was the only option. At the front end of this whole debacle, the conventional wisdom was that GM couldn’t be allowed to go bankrupt, for the reasons you stated, but as we all know they were eventually forced into some kind of bankruptcy proceedings and they have emerged without liquidation, so much for that argument. The biggest problem at this point is the controlling statist intentions of those who controlled this bankruptcy and are now dictating how GM will operate, right down to how much it will be allowed to pay it’s employees.

Obviously, no one can predict the future. Let me be clear, what I’ve said is that GM’s recovery is a long-shot, not that it’s impossible. Their potential recovery will depend on whether these statist freaks are allowed to choke the company to death, or if they let those who know something about the auto industry make the necessary decisions to return to profitability.

Your comparison of GM’s situation to the Chrysler loans of the early eighties is dubious at best. The ‘Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979′ was nothing like what’s happened with GM today. For one thing, there was no tax money put into Chrysler, those were just loan guarantees, so Chrysler would have had to fail before it cost the government anything. Secondly, Chrysler didn’t have the govt micromanaging their recovery, through govt & union ownership, like GM has today. You seem to
be under the illusion that GM can just return to profitability and “pay off the loans”, but that’s not the case. These aren’t loans per se, the US govt now owns 61% of GM, the unions own 17.5% and Canada owns nearly 12%. GM can’t just return to profitability, pay off the loans and go on their merry way, GM is done as a private company until the statists in Washington are out of power, and even then, it’s future is unclear.

i disagree that i know gm would’ve been liquidated, that was said repeatedly last year and this year multiple times by multiple news sources and gm itself…that was one of the major reasons for the bailout, because the company was going to disappear…not just restructure on it’s own, it was going to liquidate…just look at this article from LLN from july…(i can find lots more, too)…

http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-liquidation-still-possible-as-july-10th-deadline-looms.html

unless your definition of liquidation is different than mine, gm was facing going permanently belly up…this is a fact, you can say that i don’t “know” this all you want, but just look at the facts, man…you need to change your position on this…

now, if you want to hold out that there were other opinions that it could’ve survived by some other mechanism, that’s fine, but those positions were in the vast minority…kinda like the intelligent design guy at an evolution convention…nobody takes that guy seriously…

“Obviously, no one can predict the future. Let me be clear, what I’ve said is that GM’s recovery is a long-shot, not that it’s impossible. Their potential recovery will depend on whether these statist freaks are allowed to choke the company to death, or if they let those who know something about the auto industry make the necessary decisions to return to profitability.”

that’s a bit of a change of position for you, and that’s not a criticism, just pointing it out…the argument most people make is this: the government ****s up everything, the government took a role in running gm, therefore the government will **** up gm…the logic of that argument never goes any deeper than that, and i just don’t buy it…it’s not a sensible argument…the other point i would make is that gm was choking itself to death…it’s own “auto industry experts” and leadership tanked a multi-billion dollar company…and the government is going to do worse? the government has more leverage than gm, and more money, so it can make the hard decisions that the gm management couldn’t…i’m not saying the government does everything right (smegley likes to characterize me that way), but i believe their input can help gm make the moves it needs to right the ship…or at least wait and see, and not pre-judge, because it’s too early to tell…

i’m not saying the current gm loans and the old chrysler loans were equivalent, but i’m sure there were the same “the government screws everything up” attitudes expressed when the government helped out chrysler then, and looked how it turned out…everybody says “the government shouldn’t meddle in business” when an example of government successfully and profitably helping business is right there – and it’s an example that applies to the auto industry…it can be done right, and it was done right relatively recently…

the future isn’t clear, for sure, but it’s certainly not “game over, man!” in my book…which is why i am on the side i am right now…

Well , who would have showed up with $50 billion to put GM thru bankruptcy? No one. They would have been liquidated. Many suppliers in the US would have followed.

leftwingagenda,

We’re not ever going to agree, so I don’t know what the point of this is, but I’ll give it one more shot. =)

1. There’s no way to know what would have happened with GM if other options had been pursued, because they weren’t pursued, and we don’t have a crystal ball. You seem to just accept the “conventional wisdom” as fact, I do not. Conventional wisdom is often wrong, for any number of reasons, agendas, group-think, etc. I don’t deny that the CW was that GM would be liquidated and there were reams of articles printed to that effect. GM itself also made that claim. What you seem to be unwilling to consider is the potential that the “liquidation scare” was used to push a certain agenda.
GM wanted government money to pull their butts out of the fire, the were willing to say anything to get the loans they were seeking. (as an aside, I don’t think they realized what was going to happen to their company if they got “what they wanted”. A prime example of “Beware what you wish for”.)
The government control types in Washington were also rubbing their hands together at the prospect of creating a govt-controlled behemoth that would follow their line on union issues, green car initiatives, and whatever else they wanted done in the auto industry.
At the same time, there was tremendous opposition to the auto bailouts from the public, both left & right. The standard procedure in these situations is to create a “crisis-reality” that presents only two options, we _have_ to do “this”, or armageddon will occur… and probably within the week. It’s the same method used to get TARP done just prior to the auto bailout scheme. It’s the same routine we’re seeing on nearly every issue now, the “stimulus” bill, healthcare, etc. Oddly enough, it seems that only the Afghan troop decision, is one that can wait for months to figure out and get just right. Interesting…

2. I realize that those who advocated another way to restructure GM were in the vast minority, that doesn’t make them wrong. There was also a vast minority who said the stimulus wouldn’t work and that the administration’s claim that unemployment wouldn’t exceed 8.5% if the stimulus passed, was a fairytale. I guess the vast minority may have had a point there!

3. That’s not really a change of position, I actually copied what I’d posted earlier about GM’s recovery being a long-shot. The trick is, it’s not going to be easy to define what “recovery” is going to look like in GM’s case. They may also fail completely, but that won’t be readily apparent because they’re now essentially a government agency. Government agencies don’t “fail”, they just require more money, more spin, and a redefinition of their purpose. I frankly don’t know how GM could “fail” at this point, in the typical sense of the word. As long as the statists are in control of the institution, they will pump whatever money is necessary to keep their experiment rolling along. They have too much to lose, not to mention all the union jobs they want to “create or save”.
My definition of recovery is GM returning to profitability,_as a company not owned by the govt & unions_.
That definition of recovery is an extreme long-shot, if not an impossibility in the foreseeable future.

4. The only point we may be able to agree on is the GM was indeed being choked to death by it’s own decisions for decades. The position they had put themselves into with their lousy products and their unsustainable legacy costs, compounded by unionleftwingagenda,

We’re not ever going to agree, so I don’t know what the point of this is, but I’ll give it one more shot. =)

1. There’s no way to know what would have happened with GM if other options had been pursued, because they weren’t pursued, and we don’t have a crystal ball. You seem to just accept the “conventional wisdom” as fact, I do not. Conventional wisdom is often wrong, for any number of reasons, agendas, group-think, etc. I don’t deny that the CW was that GM would be liquidated and there were reams of articles printed to that effect. GM itself also made that claim. What you seem to be unwilling to consider is the potential that the “liquidation scare” was used to push a certain agenda.
GM wanted government money to pull their butts out of the fire, the were willing to say anything to get the loans they were seeking. (as an aside, I don’t think they realized what was going to happen to their company if they got “what they wanted”. A prime example of “Beware what you wish for”.)
The government control types in Washington were also rubbing their hands together at the prospect of creating a govt-controlled behemoth that would follow their line on union issues, green car initiatives, and whatever else they wanted done in the auto industry.
At the same time, there was tremendous opposition to the auto bailouts from the public, both left & right. The standard procedure in these situations is to create a “crisis-reality” that presents only two options, we _have_ to do “this”, or armageddon will occur… and probably within the week. It’s the same method used to get TARP done just prior to the auto bailout scheme. It’s the same routine we’re seeing on nearly every issue now, the “stimulus” bill, healthcare, etc. Oddly enough, it seems that only the Afghan troop decision, is one that can wait for months to figure out and “get just right”. Interesting…

2. I realize that those who advocated other ways to restructure GM were in the vast minority, that doesn’t make them wrong. There was also a vast minority who said the stimulus wouldn’t work as advertised and that the administration’s claim that unemployment wouldn’t exceed 8.5% if the stimulus passed, was a fairytale. I guess the vast minority may have had a point there!

3. That’s not really a change of position, I actually copied what I’d posted earlier about GM’s recovery being a long-shot. The trick is, it’s not going to be easy to define what “recovery” is going to look like in GM’s case. They may also fail completely, but that won’t be readily apparent because they’re now essentially a government agency. Government agencies don’t “fail”, they just require more money, more spin, and a redefinition of their purpose. I frankly don’t know how GM could “fail” at this point, in the typical sense of the word. As long as the statists are in control of the institution, they will pump whatever money is necessary to keep their experiment rolling along. They have too much to lose, not to mention all the union jobs they want to “create or save”.
My definition of recovery, would be GM returning to profitability,_as a company not owned by the govt & unions_. That kind of recovery is an extreme long-shot, if not an impossibility in the foreseeable future.

4. The only point we may be able to agree on is that GM was indeed being choked to death by it’s own decisions for decades. The position they had put themselves in, with uncompetitive products, unsustainable legacy costs, and all of it compounded by union intransigence, was a recipe for failure. GM was a failing company before the govt “bought” it and GM will most likely continue to fail, it just won’t ever be allowed to die. It IS the Undead!

Not sure why that doubled up… Maybe reading it twice will make it more clear. =)

it’s clear we won’t agree, sure…although the most egregious thing about your position in point #1 is that you seem to think “we don’t have a crystal ball” is a reason to believe that gm wasn’t going to face liquidation…that’s just not true…they were against the wall and facing extinction…you’re never going to be satisfied with that, i’m sure, but i think 99% of people here at LLN and most average news-watching folks would agree gm was about to go tango-uniform…

again point #2 is not a real argument, just conjecture about folks with a minority position in an unrelated case…i don’t agree, of course ;P (most economists i’ve heard said unemployment would reach over 10%, it was just a matter of time, and how long it would be above 10% before job growth picked up)…anyway, unemployment numbers are calculated in such sketchy ways that they’re probably artificially low…if i remember right, the way the unemployment rate was calculated changed in the past few years, too…not my area of expertise (thank god)…

on point #3, here’s what i see happening…the dead bloated corpse of gm is carried along on a river of government funding for a period of time (ongoing)…the nasty dead bits are trimmed off (selling off various divisions, killing pontiac, opel, saturn, etc. & creating the dead weight holding company)…the good parts that survive get re-tooled (with a whole new set of tools in the boardroom…heh!) and they focus on their profitable markets (china etc.)…the timeline for this is iffy – but a big part of that is the sluggish “western” economies…if the US economy picks up sooner, gm will rebound sooner…if the recession recover drags, it’s going to be a wait…at some point down the road, though, gm will make money…stock will be re-issued, money from stock will then go to start paying down loans, and selling stock would also divest the US government of their control…at that point the end is in sight and it would be just a matter of time…

i’m not saying this is a done deal, but nothing to date has happened that prevents this outcome from happening…if gm wasn’t super strong in china, for example, i’d have my doubts…but they are doing very well there, and the chinese market is doing better than ours…that’s a good sign, that’s a constant stream of incoming money…this isn’t a case where the company has no product and no place to sell it…it just needs to be streamlined…

they say citigroup etc. were too big to fail…gm was too big to succeed…now that it’s on a weight loss program, i think there’s a chance the loans will be paid off eventually (5-10 year timeframe)…that’s my assessment today, at least…i’m a rational person, and if circumstances change, i’ll change my forecast, but that’s how i see it given the current situation…

LWA, we do often disagree but I also see GM continuing as a profitable company once they get past the restructuring.

I would have a completely different OPINION if GM was losing market share instead of gaining after bankruptcy. That was the one factor I was not sure about, would people still buy GM cars. They have spoken and are buying. No matter the opinions here as long as market share does not decrease much and overall annual sales increase GM will be a going concern.