No, yours is a general statement that does not take into account GM's position. I believe customers will revolt when GM announces the new CHinese built compact being sold here. You say that is wrong, and maybe so but that is what is going to happen. IMO. The general arguement of expanding into other countries do not take things like that into consideration.
Aside from the fact that the part in bold is pure speculation on your part, even if these cars
are sold here, why would customers revolt
now when they haven't revolted over Canadian-built vehicles being sold here, nor Mexican-built, nor Korean built, nor any of the other places that GM builds vehicles and parts, including the Chinese-built parts in some "American made" vehicles, such as the Equinox's engine (been made in China since
before the bailout).
Many GM vehicles are
already built outside of the US.
My argument is very specific to GM expanding into an emerging market. It is based on reality, instead of unfounded speculation. There is no evidence to suggest that your speculations have merit. There is a plethora of evidence that suggests the opposite, actually. As of right now,
I posted why I believed it was the same old. There is nothing they can promise these high wage earners, all things considered to remain in power.
False, you said it
was the same old, but then provided only your opinion as a way to support that. I disagree with your opinion about how it is the same old same old because it is very different form the same old same old.
You
might be accurate to say that the end
results will be the same (on
that, only time will tell), but when you claim they
are the same
practices as those that existed before, you are claiming something that is false.
We've covered that. Most agree that will not happen. That doesn't mean it wont but it's far less likely with the things I note.
I agree that a full recoup will not happen, but a partial recuperation is
extremely likely.
My point is that forgoing the short-sighted ideological nonsense that has thus far exacerbated the situation and instead taking a practical approach that deals with reality
will mitigate the losses.
The
only way we can mitigate the losses is by the stocks increasing in value. The
only way. wishing for GM to fail is wishing for the entire investment to be lost, and it is
exactly the kind of ideological
drivel that causes such problems to begin with.
The
only way that
any of that money will be recouped with be through the sale of the stocks. the only thing you "will see" in all of your "patience" is how
much of that money will be recouped.
Of course, every single thing about your position cries out that you have
no patience, and that you are engaging in and promoting
exactly the kind of short-sighted ideological nonsense that will
maximize our losses.
A patient approach would be to look at the business decisions described in teh OP and saying "Hey, that's a pretty smart business decision. I hope it pans out ebcause if GM is successful, we have a chance to minimize our losses over that bailout."
I take the
exact same approach to this that I did with the Iraq war. I was opposed to either of those things happening, but I'm a practical man and I don't waste my time wishing and wanting for "the Utopia that never was". I supported the surge for the
exact same reason that I support GM expanding into an emerging market.
If stupid political decisions are made, such as the GM bailout or the Iraq war, you only exacerbate the stupidity of those decisions by focusing on their stupidity and trying to "undo" them. Instead, you have to try to offset the stupid decision by making smart subsequent decisions. It is a stupid decision to hold back GM's from profitable markets base don Ideology, just as it would have been a stupid decision to pull out of Iraq instead of performing the surge.
No, but we need every single one we can get.
Then we should focus on creating more jobs in domestic markets which are
supported by our evolving economy instead of trying to cling to jobs which are no longer sustainable in our economy.
The mentality of clinging to jobs which are made obsolete in our current economic reality is the same short-sighted mentality that
leads to these kinds of bailouts in the first place. I'd have preferred it if the same amount of money was invested in the American people retraining them to deal with the new economic reality instead of pandering to their resistance to these economic changes which are quickly passing them by.
But I tend to think that when we are faced with such things, the practical approach is the best one.
A standard bankruptcy would have addressed many of the problems GM is still saddled with. (massive legacy costs for one)
Ah, the utopia that never was. We
can't go back in time, so why dwell on that utopia that never was?
