It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


GM - Government ownership...good?!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:50 PM

The government owns 61 percent of it, and 17.5 percent is held by the United Auto Workers Union, 11.7 percent is owned by Canada, and 9.8 percent is owned by the old company's bondholders.

Part of the new GM rebranding may be a new name or a new logo. Some analysts have predicted that the company will change its signature color logo from blue to green, to reflect a new, environmentally sound, perspective.

I wan't to connect the dots here.

-The government owns the majority of GM, so they have the authoritative say.
-"GM" (or the government?) is proposing a new "green" look. Remember that word...
-GM is no longer in "debt", and will not go into debt if they continue their rate of sales.

I have always said my political stand point is smack dab in the middle. I do not approve the U.S governments ways of doing things, but despite that, could this be one "good" thing?

This is all speculation, but could the government use GM as a funnel for some real, ecologically friendly, resource renewable cars?

I am talking about nationalizing the idea of solar cars, hydrogen cars, or even making cars that use gasoline but at crazy high MPG rates.

We have seen and witnessed the power oil has over our country. Maybe this is possibly "one" of the very minor fixes in the grand scheme of things to switch our country to a new generation of energy consumption?

I will finish the post by saying this.

"There is always a better way...

[edit on 10-7-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 11:55 PM
Well we may or may never be fully paid off.

I am guessing we will in some form.

As far as everything else goes, the gov. is collecting fees from the FAKE GM STOCK BEING BOUGHT AND SOLD EVERY DAY but don't mind that lol

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist

Even if GM under the leadership of the government creates the perfect green form of tranportation it wouldnt make up for the fact that the government has interferred in the free market the way they have. It goes against everything that America stands for and it sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

How is it fair for Ford that their competition is government subsidized?

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:15 AM
reply to post by grapesofraft

Well we prob. should have let GM totally fail, but then Detroit would prob. totally crumble, as if it has not already, and then that would set off chain reaction b. etc...

AIG was needed IMO, even though that is burning fire, CITI will repay over the remaining years of its life and is already selling off units

FM and FM I guess I have been hearing have been doing better as well, even though of course how much money have we sank into them..

IMO Lehman Bros. should have been saved #1 - there are many opinions on why this happened.. some say HP.. some say just because we didnt know any better.. but it is of my opinion and a few other CFP's I know that saving L Bro's most likely would have prevented 99% of this from happening in this fierce of a manner.

Would real estate still crack... prob yes, it was getting overextended, just like we were overextended at DOW 14000 - everyone knows you cant reach new highs till you hit historical lows - it is easy to say but tough to live through perhaps?

Even though, if this is as bad as it is... well let me say that I haven't had it that bad, knock on wood.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:19 AM
If your view of 'good' is the corporate state, then I guess this would be good to you. To me, no this is not good. This is not what America was meant to be, and we are heading down the road to ruin if we continue. But this is most definitely what Obama's plan for America is. Don't be surprised if you start seeing those coins the Russian president was flaunting at the G8 summit start showing up in your pocket money very soon.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:25 AM
If people wanted 'green' cars there would be a market for them.

Never gonna get a GM car.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:26 AM
reply to post by GreenBicMan

It would have been good for GM to fail or even for the government to loan it a bit of cash and tied it to measurable results like they did with Chrysler in the 80's.

If GM failed other companies would have came in and picked up the good assets and made a profit. That is how Capitalism is supposed to work.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by grapesofraft

No one wanted this.

I thought the same way... where were the competitive bids?

In reality, there were none. GM = Detroit and Detroit = Michigan.

It had to be done IMO.. they were bleeding through like 6 billion a month.. and we just forked that over in the meantime until they decided to go into BK..

But hats off, coming out of BK in 40 days flat when no one said it could be done. Hell they were talking about issuing new common GM shares 2 months ago in 2011....

It is almost scary that this ADMIN is putting things into effect like cracking a whip.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
If your view of 'good' is the corporate state, then I guess this would be good to you. To me, no this is not good. This is not what America was meant to be, and we are heading down the road to ruin if we continue. But this is most definitely what Obama's plan for America is. Don't be surprised if you start seeing those coins the Russian president was flaunting at the G8 summit start showing up in your pocket money very soon.

There is a very good reason that of course no one is talking about why Russia wants this.

They ARE TANKING BECAUSE OF FALLING OIL PRICES their Rubbel (sp?) is falling and real fast because their currency is tied to the price of oil.

This is part of the disinformation campaign going on against the US DOLLAR that I have only said 10000 times but Ill say it again bc I think it is very legit.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:40 AM
No it's not a good thing. I have no doubt that the Government wanted to own GM to push the Green Agenda. Which isn't bad that they're wanting Green Cars. But if they wanted to build their own cars they should have just made their own company. By the way transportation is relatively small in contributing to green house gases than electricity production. People don't seem to realize that. Also cars made by Governments have poor reputations: see videos. Not like our cars were anything to brag about in the 70's & 80's, but they are heavily controlled by the Unions.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by asmall89]

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by asmall89

I think it was more like it was an opportunity.

I cant say that plugging in your car is a bad thing though.. really everything else aside.. even though IMO this is 1% to do with the entire collapse of course

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:13 AM
Grape, as I have stated plenty of times, my hands lie in the middle when it comes to government interference. You think that a monopoly on the food market a good thing?

You think certain having no restrictions on the drugs people put in our foods is a good thing? After all, that is a "free market"...

It is also naive to say a government owned market, or socialism or whatever word you wish to give, is better in any way. My point is that just because it leans one way or another, does NOT make it good or bad.

Certainly though, I can understand the hate towards it being government owned due to our debt and wars and new police state laws. That is besides my point, because I am speaking in the general philosophy of it.

In response to your comment on Ford and fairness. There is no answer to that, and it is not fair. That did not even hit me, so that is one point I will give you.

Asmall, I don't think I ever recall hearing a government making their own "company"...unless I am missing something obvious. I wouldn't include military in such a category either.

I am not talking about green house gases. I am talking about the "future" of cars. Cars are a very big part of America.

If we were to leave it to the free market, who knows if foreign automakers will get the jump on us and totally control "that" part of the market.

Wouldn't it be smart to switch to an energy source for our cars that we as a country have easy access to, such as "hydrogen" powered cars, or solar?

Wouldn't this also help remove dependence on foreign oil? We still have our trucks, space ships, and airplanes that might need it, but what if all of our daily cars ran off of water? More business here in the U.S, and it would hopefully keep the money inside the borders.

No one wants "green" cars (which I hate that word so much! It isn't about the "environment" to me, but all of the other pros that can come with it as well) because they are currently a crap load of money, and offer no real savings or ways to even use them. Not many charge stations here in Ohio...

The government could sell these "GM" cars with the "new" (actually old) technology, at lower prices, being the investor of it.

I am seeing no real counter arguments besides "BIG GOVERNMENT IS BAD", which I agree with, but while there are steps ahead, there should be steps back.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist

Though I think the government and big corps abuse it there is a need for regulation in some areas. However, regulation is not the same as direct ownership and control of one company in a certain segment of industry. It creates unfair competition. How would you like to compete with the guy that can change the rules or if he looses 60 billion a month instead of 6 he can just print his own cash.

Theoretically, GM could now start handing out cars at a loss on each sale and undercut everyother car company in the world, because their principle share holder has control of the money presses. Also, the Government could regulate other car companies out of business in the same way.

Its very dangerous.

As far as the guy who said there was no competitive offer to buy the assests. I am saying they should have just put the assets up for sale. If they only got $10 for a car factory then that is all its worth. Stuff is only worth what the free market is willing to pay.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:55 AM
I really can't say for certain it's the governments fault for GM failing either. Competing companies are in business to make money and most likely colaborate in some way for their own business agendas and for the system.

All we can do is wait and see what happens and how fast. History suggested things hadn't been changing fast enough either.

Japan did seem to be more in tune with what the people wanted. It would seem that they'll still beat the competition. Japanese cars maintain higher resale values. GM has a history of lower quality they have to get past.

Unless GM does power plant upgrades and conversions, I don't think this will happen within two years.

I'm all for upgrading my drivetrain in some way, like adding a hybrid or electric rear axle to my front wheel drive. That should be worth a couple thousand or so. (probably more though)

That could also be done with existing new cars they have stockpiles of.

Some people buy new cars and converted them already. Someone is going to make money faster, I would imagine, especially if fuel prices go up again.

I'm fairly certain GM has several shelved technologies that could be brought out. The government might be the one to bring these out. Time will tell either way. Follow the leader?

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:01 PM
Im thinking GM has a great start, instead of General Motors alternative names could be

GM = Green Motors
GM = Government Motors

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by grapesofraft

I follow your point now.

Hell, instead of bailing them out and "owning" them, the government could have used tax incentives for whatever technology they wished to bring out.

While the bailout might have been necessary, there are many other ways the government can get what it wants without actually expanding its agency.

The whole idea of competition didn't even strike me when making this thread...

Just another thought gone bad

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:48 PM
Buying social peace in the short term.
In the long term, dunno ...

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:48 PM
Sorry to intrude. I just have a question about GM. How did they get out of bankruptcy?

Aren't they still in the red or are they out of bankruptcy because we gave huge amout of financial support?

I personally hope GM fails and go down the drain. They deserved it for not listening to their own engineers. The engineers been giving letters to the CEO stating that we need change. They even gave alot of good suggestions on what they should do. My dad gave a suggestion about the hydrogen cars. My dad sent a letter in the year 1998. He was rejected. Then many others gave their Ideas and most were rejected. Now look where GM is at. They fall on it's face and look who gets to forcefully give a hand... the taxpayers.

GM new Ceo dosen't have good enough experience to run a company. I personally think GM car sales will slide down. Who wants a car that once driven off the lot the whole car comes undone. That is what I call a huge depreciation.

I personally don't think it's good for the GOV to have ownership of GM. We fund them yet we get zero control on the company. I hope you know that the US government does own GM but they can't tell GM what to do.

I also wanted just for the fun of it. Write a letter to congress and everyone in the U.S government. That when do I get the percentages of profit GM gets. I mean I should get money for my share of taxes. I mean they are using my tax money so that makes me part ownership.

I doubt GM will pick up. They may have a 2nd shot but they don't have a 2nd shot to fix their image.

So my question is how did GM get out of bankruptcy? What happened to their bond shareholders?

top topics


log in