To be valid, we'd first need to strip out at least 80% of the other competitors, consolidate them into a few big buyers and then structure the supply chain to where each supplier was extremely beholden to individual firms on individual equipment pieces. This is why your current and earlier oil comparison doesn't make any sense. Because that's not how the oil equipment market is run.How about this scenario then, imagine Exxon (for example) has suppliers that specilize in equipment that only Exxon needs. If Exxon makes a new advancement, or no longer needs that product, are we to artificially prop up a supply company because demand has changed? No.
I agree that propping up individual firms is a bad idea, however, the argument that nothing drastic would have changed doesn't make sense when you look at the integration of the supply chain. Without at least GM, there likely wouldn't be enough demand to support the supply chain. That's what got some of the other suppliers in trouble. They specialized too much.
Yes, but Lord T and I are talking about an entire industry not just one firm as you are.I am sorry if a company developed a specilaized business model which was 100% reliant on another company maintaining some level of production...If the company they are reliant on goes under, change your business model, or go under as well. That is no reason to save a company. It would be like paying to keep propeller manufacturors open even though the demand has plummetted with the rolling out of the jet engine.
I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between cyclical and structural.Sorry you feel that way.