home

As Goes GM, So Goes The Nation?

Via Atrios, we will own GM:

The U.S. Treasury would own at least a 50 percent stake in General Motors under a plan the company released today to avoid bankruptcy. The strategy would essentially formalize the government's control over one of the icons of corporate America. . . . Under the outlines announced yesterday, the federal government would take an equity stake of at least 50 percent, the United Auto Workers would take as much as 39 percent, the company's bondholders would get 10 percent and the existing shareholders 1 percent.

Think of it as a massive jobs program. Now, how about Citi?

Speaking for me only

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Wiretap Applications Drop 14% in 2008 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    citi's a bank (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    they're special. we don't own them. they own us.

    What about blue cross, united healthcare (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    And all the other health  insurance
    Leaches?  

    Parent
    Aetna (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 08:17:11 PM EST
    I said it months ago (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:47:32 PM EST
    the Conrail model was the way to go, not just for the car industry.

    Those of you old enough to recall the 70s might remember the creation of ConRail Corporation (Consolidated Rail Corporation), a government-owned corporation which merged 6 limping, dead or dying railroads* in the Northeast into one company.  It took about 5 years to (a) rationalize the often-redundant freight lines (often, one of the ancestor lines had tracks on one bank of a river and another had them on the other) into a sensible network, (b) get rid of worn out rolling stock and get new, (c) fix the often-decrepit tracks, (d) hive off passenger service to Amtrak or local governments, (e) work out issues with creditors and (f) rationalize employments.  After those were done, Conrail started turning a profit.  In 1987, the government sold it in an IPO, at a profit.

    I think that's where we will be going with GM and, I hope, Chrysler.
    -

    *  Penn Central, Erie Lackawanna, Lehigh Valley, Jersey Central, Lehigh & Hudson River, Reading. The Penn Central had previously been the Pennsylvania and the New York Central, merged in the 60s and also owned most of the Lehigh Valley, and the Erie Lackawanna was also the product of an earlier merger of the Erie and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:22:49 PM EST
    They'll lower the payments on my car?

    This seems to point towards... (none / 0) (#2)
    by mike in dc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    ...a clear solution to their health insurance premium problem...put everyone employed by GM on a public plan and have the government pay half of it.  
    Also, shouldn't the government then essentially be able to dictate what kind of cars GM will be making, going forward?  If the government has no control over R&D, marketing or manufacturing decisions, it's a pretty worthless deal, in my opinion.

    Well, I would have prefered that they (none / 0) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:30:29 PM EST
    kept Saturn and ditched buick in addition to Pontiac (which the CEO got very, very wistful about and seemed to me to be one of the key problems at GM for years now - they made my Saab brand into models that were almost indistinguishable from GMC's).  But at the same time, I don't think that there really are that many people in Congress who have a clue about making or selling cars - not that GM US does - just that there is no brain trust here to do that kind of thinking imo.

    Parent
    I like it (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    How much did U.A.W. own before?

    I always think it's a good thing to have the employees as a major shareholder.

    Political pressures galore (none / 0) (#54)
    by diogenes on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:01:31 PM EST
    Now that the feds own half of GM they'll be subject to congressional pork as congressmen try to use pull to open new plants or keep existing ones open.  The Dems in Congress will try to buy union votes by never again proposing worker givebacks and by raising pay in election years (the way politicians do with farmers in Iowa now).    

    Parent
    Although LAT says Chrysler (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 10:18:15 PM EST
    pensions fund is dumping Chrysler stock.

    Parent
    just let it die... (none / 0) (#4)
    by bocajeff on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    or, Trebi's for everyone!

    Wow (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:30:19 PM EST
    Isn't this an illegal subsidy?

    Why would it be illegal? (none / 0) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:31:01 PM EST
    Can you explain?

    Parent
    I'm with Oculus (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:31:51 PM EST
    What do you mean?

    Parent
    WTO something (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:35:05 PM EST
    I'd have to look up the details.

    Parent
    Tell me where (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    the WTO forbids a debt-for-equity swap!  The government loans have already been made.

    Parent
    Nationalization in general (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    I admit that I don't know much about it, but I would be surprised if this whole action comported with our international agreements.

    Parent
    I'd be surprised if it didn't (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:58:14 PM EST
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:00:45 PM EST
    I'm not familiar with them in detail, so I can't speak with authority.

    Parent
    Don't see it (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    If that's the case, China is a huge massive illegal subsidy.

    Parent
    Should we force them to spend their Dollars? (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:49:05 PM EST
    That would be interesting.

    Parent
    Citi? (none / 0) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:32:22 PM EST
    That's a small jobs program with massive salaries and bonuses.

    CitiGroup and GM employ about the same (none / 0) (#43)
    by reslez on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:54:53 PM EST
    number of people: 300k worldwide. I don't know the breakdown for domestic vs foreign. On the other hand you can argue GM indirectly employs many more via GMAC, parts suppliers, pensioners etc.

    No, I'm not saying Citi deserves a bailout more.

    Parent

    Wonder what they (none / 0) (#11)
    by eric on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    are going to do with SAAB.  The article says that they aren't going to make them anymore (along with Saturn and Hummer), maybe they are going to sell it?  Hope so.

    The Swedish government (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:37:47 PM EST
    is apparently prepared to set Saab die. That would be said, but the company is pretty much a shadow of its former self.

    Parent
    Yes, GM ruined (none / 0) (#17)
    by eric on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    it.  Maybe somebody will buy the brand and keep it mothballed until the situation improves.

    Parent
    Hey! I think I saw a Buick! (none / 0) (#41)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:00:18 PM EST
    silly really (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    jobs program?  So if GM goes bankrupt and has no gov't support all those jobs just disappear?  

    GM goes away entirely, 10 new companies are born and over 5-10 years those jobs are back at those new companies and other auto companies will have hired some.

    If this is how we are going to count "saved" jobs, in the 3.5 million saved or created stimulus, we are in for a very long haul to recovery.

    I assume the 21k jobs that are scheduled to be shed will be counted as "saved" under the stimulus program.  

    Puff the magic doobie....

    Horray for common sense (none / 0) (#44)
    by Slado on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:02:28 PM EST
    This "jobs program" is costing the economy jobs.

    No one has the right to a certain job.  The UAW and GM execs killed this company.  It needs to die.

    Now the taxpayer will pay more in financed dollars then the job is worth just to keep an unprofitable company alive.

    Sort of like having two poeple do a government job one person in the private sector could do.

    Waste of taxpayer money.

    Parent

    private sector isn't always more efficient than (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:38:30 PM EST
    the government...

    just look at privatized prisons (who are actually LESS efficient than the government ran institutions)...

    Parent

    Hard to compare (none / 0) (#56)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:30:07 AM EST
    prisons to car companies don't you think?

    Please name a state run car company that's better then the private alternative?

    Eitehr we live in a capatalist country or we don't.

    Let GM die and let good companies scoop up the good workers, factories etc...

    Parent

    Additionally (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    The U.S. Treasury Department would own a majority stake in General Motors Corp., have the right to appoint all of its directors and have veto power over all shareholder actions under the company's new restructuring plan unveiled today

    Link

    And as to how much of the company was owned by employees, well, here's your answer:

    The manager of General Motors Corp.'s employee stock fund sold all shares of GM stock on fears the company could be forced to file for bankruptcy in the coming weeks, the automaker said Friday.

    As of Dec. 31, nearly 30,000 GM employees and other plan participants held about 75 million GM shares --12.5 percent of the Detroit automaker -- in their 401(k) plans. GM spokeswoman Julie Gibson said the total number of shares had not significantly changed since then.

    GM suspended new stock purchases by employees last year because the company had run out of shares to sell.

    Employee shares were sold over the last 25 days at an average selling price of $1.87, Gibson said



    What a horrible outcome. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:57:45 PM EST

    If this comes to pass, watch Congress pass laws and regulations that favor GM over Ford and every other US assembly plant.

    The money pit Chevy Volt is a prime example.  It is already rated at 100 mpg for CAFE purposes.  A number that round comes from negotiations not measurements.

    Anybody want to take a bet on the Volt being blessed with a $10,000 tax credit within a year of US ownership?

    What the heck? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    Do you think Congress gets a performance bonus if GM makes its numbers or something?

    Parent
    Worse (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:48:53 PM EST
    They get votes.  My own biases are pro-free market, so to be fair I should point out that if the GM takeover leads to a good outcome, the politicians involved should get an increase in esteem and votes for it, and that's a good thing because it reinforces effective governance.  The problem is a conflict of interest because those politicians have their reputations tied to GM's success as they make policies that should treat all American car companies equally.


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:54:31 PM EST
    I hardly think the people of Maine are going to re-elect Susan Collins based upon how well the government has run GM compared to its competitors.

    Parent
    I think it's an interesting questions (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 04:00:40 PM EST
    How should the employees of Ford and Chrysler react to this?

    Parent
    Aren't they UAW members too? (none / 0) (#39)
    by roy on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 04:17:49 PM EST
    I also wonder about the effect of UAW being a major GM shareholder while many of its members work for GM competitors.  Is there a precedent for a union owning large portions of a company like this?  I can imagine the UAW putting GM votes on the table in Ford labor negotiations.  It's also a bit funny that the union representing Ford's workers could be getting dividends from GM, once GM returns to profitability.

    Personally, I own a small amount of stock in one of my company's major competitors.  It hasn't caused a concrete problem, but it can complicate things.


    Parent

    They won;t (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    In fact, I doubt they would hold GM for more than a few years.

    Parent
    The British experience in the 70s (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    was apparently not so good. We'll see.

    Parent
    You might have noticed that (none / 0) (#28)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    as a major part of its stimulus package, Germany undertook a huge credit program - 2,500 Euros - to subsidize the purchase of new, more efficient cars which took older, less efficient cars off the road.  The idea was to keep the car lines (and jobs) rolling and take a whack at global warming, too.

    And the Brits are now doing similarly.

    It's actually a sensible idea.

    Parent

    What will we do with it? (none / 0) (#24)
    by roy on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    Is the federal government empowered to vote its shares in private corporations?  Who decides how to vote?  For that matter, who decides who decides how to vote?  Where do the dividends go?

    And what does this mean to GM's competitors?  If I ran Ford, I'd be very worried about congress crafting its legislation to benefit GM so the government ownership of the company looks like a success.

    To answer your questions: (none / 0) (#29)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    1.  yes.
    2.  whomever the government hires to be in charge.
    3.  that depends on how the law establishing the government ownership is set up.
    4.  Don't worry about dividends.  There won't be any.
    5.  They'll keep on.
    6.  If I was Ford, I'd recognize that I'd rather have an American-owned competitor than a Chinese-owned one, the latter being what you'd get if the government didn't take over GM.

    Go look at the Conrail example to see how this will work.  Please.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#30)
    by eric on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:09:11 PM EST
    if it eases your mind some, I wouldn't worry about the dividends.

    Parent
    US gov. charts GM'S future? (none / 0) (#31)
    by WS on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    With a 50% equity stake, that would make the US a major decision maker in the future of GM, correct?  If so, make GM engineer manufacture buses and railcars for America's public transportation network.  I'm sure those car engineers can add rail and buses to their expertise and also can diversify GM's products to more than just cars.  

    Universal health care can also help GM and maybe GM can reduce legacy costs by moving people to a public plan.  

    But make GM build buses and railcars!

    So...we have many corporations (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    that are very profitable due to government defense spending, and they aren't government owned...and now we own the unprofitable companies.

    If irony weren't dead...I'd find that ironic...

    Watch your 401(ks) (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:35:44 PM EST
    Even if you don't work at an auto company.

    If the car companies crash, will your pension crash with them?

    That question is being raised on assembly lines around America, in the towns where many auto workers went to retire, and in the halls of Washington. The issue goes far beyond the car companies.

    The answer, from economists and others who keep an eye on retirement plans, is that most workers' pensions will be safe -- but... And it's a pretty big "but."

    First, warn some economists, there may be a domino effect if Chrysler or General Motors declare bankruptcy. As they reorganize into smaller, leaner companies, they are likely to cut back on the benefits they offer to future employees -- and companies in other industries, under pressure themselves, may do the same.

    Second, the struggling economy has been hard on many pension plans. Hammered by the downturn, some of them simply do not have the money at the moment to pay all their projected obligations.

    "You have this triple storm," said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP, the advocacy group that represents people over age 50. "The market is down, interest rates on fixed-income investments are low, and there are tough rules to limit what a pension plan can do to raise more money."  




    My 401k is fine (none / 0) (#35)
    by eric on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:37:43 PM EST
    its in a cash fund.  I don't trust stocks.

    Parent
    maybe people will start putting more money (none / 0) (#40)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 04:29:26 PM EST
    in Angel networks and less in their 401k's...

    that would be a good start, I think...

    Parent

    How do you think the US is doing (none / 0) (#45)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:14:53 PM EST
    in running GM so far?

    Maybe Congress can get involved in the near future with some tinkering here and there. Perhaps car colors. Perhaps compensation policy.

    Where do you see a massive jobs program? (none / 0) (#46)
    by DFLer on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    or did I miss something in your (BTD) intent?

    GM today announced 21,000 US factory jobs cut by next year, and the closing down of about half of its dealerships (and all the jobs there)

    They better not be planning on outsourcing.

    Imagine GM shut down (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 06:34:14 PM EST
    So what (none / 0) (#48)
    by Slado on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 07:14:02 PM EST
    GM shut down would be painful.

    But what do you think would happen to billions of dollars in expertise, manpower, infastructure, engineering, test labe etc?

    It would just be boarded up and closed forever?

    No, the stuff worth anything would be gobbled up by investors, turned into profit and we would have good jobs instead of charity cases.

    That's all that the good employees at GM will be seen as now that they work for the gov't.  Tax funded charity cases.

    If you think for one second anyone is going to buy a car made by the gov't vs. one made by Ford, Toyota, Honda you are smoking something, and I want some.

    GM will go further in the whole, government will run the company as well as it runs anything, poorly, and then GM will go the way it should ahve gone, into bankruptcy but not before it takes billions of taxpayer dollars with it.

    Insanity.

    Parent

    In the short term (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 07:20:36 PM EST
    It would mean millions of jobs lost.

    In the medium and long term, I do not disagree with you.

    What you fail to understand is we are on the verge of the Greatest Depression.

    I repeat, consider this a massive jobs program.

    In 3-5 years, GM as we know it will be gone most likely. We can't afford it right now.

    Parent

    Millions of jobs lost (none / 0) (#53)
    by Coral on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:58:27 PM EST
    in a deep recession. Think of the impact on already nose-diving consumer spending, mortgage and credit defaults, local economies, state and local budgets with diminished tax base and increasing safety-net costs.

    The multiplier effects would be devastating, especially in the midst of global financial crisis.

    "Painful" is not the right word here. Painful is what will happen even with some kind of government takeover. Jobs/distributerships cut already.

    I find it ironic that Bush entered with the destruction of the World Trade Center, and exits with the destruction of world trade.

    Parent

    This May Happen... (none / 0) (#50)
    by santarita on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 07:52:41 PM EST
    as I understand the situation.  The bondholders have not agreed to this proposal and are preparing a counteroffer.

    Also doesn't Uncle Sam already have a controlling interest in Citi?  I thought that it had converted its preferred shares to common as part of the last TARP infusion?

    I think government ownership of GM is not a bad idea - it can convert the Pontiac assembly lines into armored car assembly lines.    It's a kind of reverse privatization. Would GM employees become government employees?  That could take care of a large chunk of health care insurance issues.  We could have a USDA - United States Department of Automobiles.

    I don't get it . . . (none / 0) (#57)
    by allys gift on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 10:19:32 AM EST
    ownership is good when it means control, and control is good when the people in control do the right stuff.

    So does this deal say anything about whomever controls GM doing the right stuff:  ie: building a green transportation infrastructure to include rail, electric cars and buses with highly paid skilled American workers who have rights and health care?

    I know we are insinuating that because of the UAW being in on the deal, but is it actually part of the deal?

    What a screw job! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    Bond holders have $27 Billion in bonds and get only 10% of the company.

    The Feds have loaned GM $15 Billion and get 50%.

    The UAW holds $10 billion in bonds and gets 39%.

    Those retirees holding GM bonds are going to get screwed big time.  The only question is what is the government going to do to stop this rip off?