Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
No sting here - but how would that differ from letting GM go bankrupt and letting other car makers buy the facilities? The shareholders would get nothing in either case, and only the most effcient facilities would be wanted in either case.
|
I suspect the shareholders are going to get screwed, no matter what happens... the fault of GM's suicidal policies, and their willingness to go along with the ride. I'm sorry, it was fun while it lasted, but we've reached the falls... it was nice knowing you.
As far as the difference, it comes in the form of the government's accepting a significant part of the losses, in exchange for brokering the deal to make sure an automaker that gains the facilities uses them specifically to make cars America needs, as opposed to simply taking the facilities cheap, closing most of them, and building more gas-guzzlers with the rest.
The automakers will save money in the transaction, making them more likely to retain as much of the current plants (and workers) as possible... and the government would have a hand in guiding development, and making sure there was as little disruption to the workforce as possible.
If, maybe, the new automakers did not want certain facilities (the oldest, the most inefficient), perhaps the government would take just those over, and use them to make a federalized car. That would hopefully satisfy everyone's need for a vehicle, whether it be a snazzy automaker product, or a bare-bones government ride for those who need no more than that.
Obviously, the more plants stay open, the more American jobs get preserved.