The Case AGAINST Bailing Out GM/Chrysler

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Formula413

The employees would become the management. As the shareholders they could hire their own board of directors and choose people who would move the company in a more sustainable direction. Not to mention that instead of the give and take of management fighting for higher profits vs unions fighting for higher wages the employee's wages would be directly tied to profits. They would have a direct stake in the success of the company.

I like this idea the more I think about it. It might finally be the end of GM's attitude problems from the top-down. They need to sell off "Renaissance Place" in Detroit (it's just a huge, mostly empty -- how should I put it, compensation for something ). Get a clean-slate Board and get to work. If the employees control their benefits, maybe the Union wouldn't have to get involved as often.

As for the other 2, Ford has actually has a plan for some small cars and a pile of cash. Chrysler can give up on all but Jeep and the Minivan line (everything needs a makeover to get the Daimler out of them). Maybe the truck division can stay if they offer stripped-down 6-cylinder, stick-shift models with steel wheels. That sort of thing.

-Rick

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

There seems to be this assumption that somebody else could manage GM, Ford, and Chrysler and do better. I'd like to know who this might be.

For an example of a company that was in a similar position, yet managed to turn around and become quite profitable, consider IBM. They'd stuck to their core mainframe business while the world was moving to the PC (which they'd developed, ironically enough), and as a result were losing market share. Yet the management was able to eventually break out of that mindset, change their business model, and become profitable again.

[Matt Herring]

perhaps the most enlightened post yet james...and without a government bailout or any taxpayer assistance...wow! imagine that...a free market company that was responsible for their own fate based on their own merits.

any company thay takes a govt bailout will never see a single dime of my money from here on out...i already changed banks last month because mine got a bailout...from my taxes. if i dont pay my electric bill and my electric gets shut off...think the government will bail me out? how about my cable bill...gas bill...car payment?

its all a joke...if u didnt think the lower and middle classes were not a priority...by now u should know its a fact

[SuperTrooper]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

For an example of a company that was in a similar position, yet managed to turn around and become quite profitable, consider IBM. They'd stuck to their core mainframe business while the world was moving to the PC (which they'd developed, ironically enough), and as a result were losing market share. Yet the management was able to eventually break out of that mindset, change their business model, and become profitable again.

So using this model GM should stick to their core business of trucks and SUVs and cut loose the car divisions.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by SuperTrooper

So using this model GM should stick to their core business of trucks and SUVs and cut loose the car divisions.

Well, if you insist on an exact correspondence, they should just make high-performance sports cars and heavy trucks, while developing vastly-improved engine technology which they license to the companies that actually build the cars.

But of course a copycat solution wouldn't work. What they need instead is the willingness to look outside their current business model in order to find something that will work.