"There was no money to keep GM operating during the months (and years) it took to reorganize. "^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^There were assets that could have been sold off.There were pieces that could have been divested.Frankly, Korean and Japanese management and interests might have even been better sources to invest in facilities in the US rust-belt.Once a decision is made you can't go back and say "well, if only"- so the discussion is really a mute point. But governmentintervention comes at a cost which must be recognized ---- andthat cost is an exclusion of ideas that can come from the abandoned stakeholders,a retention of the old guard and to a degree retention ofthe prior failed practices."If GM had gone through bankruptcy there would have been no GM at all. "^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^GM has a chance to come back and be an inventive successful automanufacturer. But what if there were no GM at all?A smaller - more nimble company or three might have really been a real step toward a return to innovation in Detroit autos.Course, government intervention did not have to leave GM as anovergrown industrial giant - but people at the time were too focused on the downsides to see opportunities. I can't say that a split of GM would have generated much better performance - butI wonder what might have come from smaller companies working to satisfy a less "universal" market.Howie52
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra