Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (44921)	8/17/2010 6:54:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

My only point of disagreement with your post is the idea that its very highly likely that the government's short term cost would have been higher without the bailout. They may have been, but GM failing without a bailout isn't a forgone conclusion. Many large businesses have operated in bankruptcy. Its possible that by the time the final bailout came GM had gone to far, but even that isn't certain, and if it is true, its also true that not all that far in the past, it was obvious the GM was heading towards the rocks, but still had enough resources to make it through a non-bailout bankruptcy without any bailout, and then later than that they would still have enough just with the government loan that Bush gave them (which I didn't and don't support, but which is less interventionist than what came later). It should have declared bankruptcy before that loan. Or the loan could have been "debtor in possession" financing for an immediate bankruptcy without all the additional government intervention, favoring the unions etc. But the company was kept bleeding to push the decision on to the Obama administration since Bush as "a lame duck". All the delay did was cost us more money, and also bring about a situation with more political manipulation of the bankruptcy.