Do you think it is likely that giving the Big Three several hundred billion dollars

[Occam Bandage]

will cause/allow them to become long-term sustainable, profitable businesses? Note that I am not asking if the Big Three collapsing would be disastrous, nor am I asking if the CEOs of those companies deserve to have checks written to them; those are different discussions.

[On the Road]

1. I Think the Word "Become"

is assuming that they're not. All three have been in business for many decades. The fact that they're close to going under at the moment does not mean they're not viable over the long term.

[Occam Bandage]

2. Left to its own devices, GM will not last a year.

It has been slowly but steadily losing market share and profitability for some time now. That is not a viable business. It may have been in the past, but it certainly is not at the moment.

[On the Road]

7. By That Measure,

Chrysler was not a viable business in the 1970s, but it showed itself capable of recovering as long as it was provided a bridge over the worst times. GM just needs its own Lee Iacocca.

[Occam Bandage]

11. So, we just need a new Lee Iacocca to fix everything?

While not to sound overtly sarcastic, how long would you be comfortable pumping money into the Big Three in hopes of another Messianic CEO? Is there a point where you decide that new blood won't fix it? Would (and keep in mind this is only an hypothetical) it be acceptable to pour half a trillion dollars per year indefinitely to keep the Big Three alive?

[On the Road]

15. No, It's Not Acceptable To Pour Half a Trillion per Year Indefinitely

I don't even know enough about the details to know whether a bailout is a good idea. Under no conditions should money be pumped in -- it should only be provided as a loans to be paid back in full, or perhaps as capital if the chances of recovery are good.

You have obviously concluded that GM is not a long-term viable business in spite of the fact that it has been in business for 100 years and two months, survived the Great Depression, and has sold more vehicles than any of its American competitors. How you could say this without support is beyond me.

General Motors has never been a particularly efficient or well run company, but they have been very successful, largely due to dominant market share and efficiencies of scale. They are in deep trouble now due to a combination of factors, not the least of which is that that the industry changed much too rapidly for them to adapt their design and production.

To know whether GM is going to fail, you would need to get into the books. The company, preferably a new CEO, would need to form a restructuring plan, and try to work out of it. It may likely to require Chapter 11 reorganization. Some parts of the company may have to be sold. The unions may have to give concessions and executives may have to have their bonuses eliminated for the foreseeable future.

Who knows -- sometimes these things work and sometimes they don't. The retreat of oil prices is a good sign, but economic conditions are not. Sometimes things look much different six months later. None of us are close enough to be able to judge GM's prospects.

[busymom]

3. How will things be different?

I'm just wondering how giving them several hundred BILLION dollars will change anything but delay the inevitable? Sure, the Volt is awesome, but they started saying it would retail for 30k...the most recent estimate from the company is now at ~48k. Maybe you have that, but I don't.....

[1Hippiechick]

4. If the Fed. Govt can take over schools that aren't performing, why not industries? Iacocca could

turn it around, imo. ANY and ALL money should come with stipulations and with strings attached. Get rid of the fatcats. Get rid of the UNIONs. Hell, get rid of tenure on the job - everyone should have to meet and maintain a standard, imo.

[RichardRay]

5. Yes, with caveats

The current request is for $25 billion although I wouldn't be surprised to have them return for more. That said, I do believe they can do it, but it will take some pretty agressive management and a lot of sacrifice by shareholders and employees to do it. If I worked there I'd be thinking about just how much ownership of the new versions of the companies I'd want for the unions and the membership.

[ben_meyers]

6. Not likely, one only need to remember some history

Remember way back when there used to be IBM, Control Data and Univac? The big 3 computer companies, where are they now? How about Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Wards? The 2 largest retailers in the world competing with each other?

Times change, what if the government had bailed out the buggy whip barons last century, would they still be a long-term sustainable, profitable business?

It's evolution and there's no stopping it, only delaying the inevitable.

[blue_onyx]

8. I say yes

But I think taking the burden of providing health off the auto companies will do just as much, if not more, than giving them bailout money.

[TahitiNut]

9. Absent the customer base able and willing to purchase their products, nothing will do.

It's the same problem with the "sub-prime mortgage" meltdown and "housing market" collapse. It makes no sense whatsoever to transfuse the corporations when their customer base is incapable of sustaining the puported social objective for their very existence. You just can't solve the problem of cars running off the road and crashing into trees by putting higher octane gas into their tanks.

The consequences of impoverishing the working class cannot be avoided by taxing the working class where they're already economically disenfranchised.

[Kokonoe]

10. It also bails out about 1 million union democratic households.

Republicans give money to wall street, yet refuse to loan money to union businesses.

[Occam Bandage]

12. kick.

[dkofos]

13. NO They will piss away our tax dollars just like the bankers are doing.

[GoesTo11]

14. Even if they don't nationalize them, Govt should buy a 25% stake in each

At current prices, that'd be about $1B total. Then I'd feel a lot better about putting Gov't money in. But no way should it be several hundred billion.