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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (782394)	4/28/2014 2:36:05 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1576885

..and that's totally not mentioning the 10's of thousands of domestic dealerships that would have gone under. It would have been a national disaster leading to a depression.

To: combjelly who wrote (782394)	4/28/2014 2:51:13 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576885

CJ, these assumptions would make sense if the barrier to entry for the supply chain was prohibitively high. Then it can be argued that a major disruption would have been unrecoverable. But since the barrier isn't that high, it can be argued that, although a disruption would have caused a lot of plant closures, the subsequent recovery would have seen a lot of those plants opening back up. Same with the dealerships that would have closed down, then opened back up after the recovery. Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (782394)	4/29/2014 8:42:24 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576885

Bankruptcy (for either the car companies or for the suppliers) is not the same as ending operations. The car companies should have gone in to an orderly bankruptcy earlier, but figuring (correctly) that they could be bailed out that didn't happen.

To: combjelly who wrote (782394)	4/29/2014 2:20:57 PM
From: i-node	5 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Taro Tenchusatsu TideGlider TopCat Respond to of 1576885

I think you're confused about the terminology or something. GM was never going to have anything others than a managed bankruptcy. They are just too big. The only question is what should have been government's role. Mitt Romney was clearly correct. Government should not have been involved although it could have lent money if no one stepped up from private markets. There was no chance of GM not continuing as a going concern, and Obama did NOT save GM. GM was going to continue. The question was whether Obama would get in the way of a permanent fix. He did, and GM will be back in chapter 11 as a result. Next time around private capital will not be willing to get involved unless the unions are totally obliterated and replaced by automation. At any rate GM was never going to shut down.