The Economist - An apology is due to Barack Obama

[elvis]

awww... DID I HURT YOUR FUCKING CAPITALISTA FEELINGS?

No, your thesis has no legs. Gm is tens of billions away from becoming independent of the US and Canadian governments.

Why did you think that you had a point?

Feel free to email The Economist and let them know how wrong they are. Tell them YOU said so.

We will. the envelope will read:
Anonymous
c/o The Economist

followed by their address.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, among the top ten nations with a high standard of living, there are a lot of variations of regulated capitalism to choose from. One might note that all but one rank high in quality of health care. And there is one just north of us that does not have a deficit problem.

 

[Shogun]

I wonder if Shogun agrees with whoever the author of the article is when (s)he says grabby unions helped ruin GM.

Don't cry on my shoulder just because a bastion of capitalista philosophy can admit what oddball can't. If anything, this is just one more brick in the wall of fail that his favorite little economic system is known for.

Which economic system do you think we should use, if not "his"?

socialized capitalism that is willing to protect itself from globalization.

 

[Jeremy]

Government Motors no more
An apology is due to Barack Obama:

No thanks.

AMERICANS expect much from their president, but they do not think he should run car companies. Fortunately, Barack Obama agrees.

This week the American government moved closer to getting rid of its stake in General Motors (GM) when the recently ex-bankrupt firm filed to offer its shares once more to the public (see article).

So let me get this straight. GM is trying again to get approval to offer its shares to the public and this master of literary spin is making it appear as if it's the American Governments struggle?
The Government is the one that grants the fucking approval asshole!

Once a symbol of American prosperity, GM collapsed into the government’s arms last summer. Years of poor management and grabby unions had left it in wretched shape.

Efforts to reform came too late. When the recession hit, demand for cars plummeted. GM was on the verge of running out of cash when Uncle Sam intervened, throwing the firm a lifeline of $50 billion in exchange for 61% of its shares.

What sad is that it took a collapse of the financial industry for them to realize they needed to reform their doomed business model.

Yet the doomsayers were wrong. Unlike, say, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who used public funds to support Renault and Peugeot-Citroën on condition that they did not close factories in France, Mr Obama has been tough from the start. GM had to promise to slim down dramatically—cutting jobs, shuttering factories and shedding brands—to win its lifeline. The firm was forced to declare bankruptcy. Shareholders were wiped out. Top managers were swept aside. Unions did win some special favours:

There's a fucking shocker.

Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia...

good.

...and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts.

But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible.

Restore, sure, but were the necessary reforms implemented to ensure this doesn't happen all over again? (ie. revisiting union contracts) I doubt it.

GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.

Nice! And I'm sure the profit will go straight toward the deficit.

That does not mean, however, that bail-outs are always or often justified.

No shit.

Straightforward bankruptcy is usually the most efficient way to allow floundering firms to restructure or fail.

The state should step in only when a firm’s collapse poses a systemic risk.

... to unions.

Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one.

Playing the hindsight game already? Are you fucking serious?

The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal (for shareholders) and temporary (for unions).

The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry*.

*Except for the health insurance and banking industries.

A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.

A gambler, yes. An interventionist, absofuckinglutely. A socialist, A man can dream can't he? A one term president. Definitely!