Not trying to be a wiseguy here, but we already left those decisions to the board interested proprietor etc.....And I don't think that it really worked.
Not liking the stockholders decisions does NOT give the government the right to oust a CEO. If that's what you think, then you hav eto accept the statement that the gov't is ultimately in charge of every single company and has effective veto power over every owner's decision.. That's false, and it also violates contract law. It's also not what the gov't is mandated to do.
Furthermore, then why did the company ASK for money for a bail out?
If they are the recipients of tax dollars then Constitution has little or nothing to do with this matter.
Agree/disagree. They should not have asked for LOANS from the devil. That I agree. And a loan will have stiff requirements, that I do agree. However, a loan is not a bailout in the sense of the bailouts forced upon many banks. The gov't does not have the right or authority to run a car company or mandate any contractual changes outside of Bankruptcy court. Additionally, Obama has NO RIGHT to ignore Bankruptcy law and give 55% of Chrysler to the UAW.
They accepted money (this action implies) that they are compelled to accept some Major Terms.
Agreed.
We are not talking about small change here either <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/zombie.gif" alt="" />
So?
When I go to the bank and get a loan or involve myself in a monetary transaction (I also agree to the terms presented).
But the bank does NOT have the right to dictate who runs your company or what widget you produce... they only have the right to call the note and "foreclose" on your business.
The Constitution has little or nothing to do with my legal obligations concerning my conduct in administering financial affairs for a company.
100% incorrect. If you were in the context of a bank, I agree, but the fed gov't stepped in here and helped sell the loans to the general public stating over 3M jobs would be lost if they didn't. Now the gov't is firing some 100-200K people. THAT type of loan is one you get from a bookie - not from a bank. Ultimately, that was GM's mistake, and they shoudl own it, BUT the gov't has NO RIGHT to ignore laws to suit their goals of control. That is what is happening here.
If GM had refused bail out dollars------------------------------------------------------------then I might have seen it ur way Brian.
WAit - if GM didn't get loans and the gov't still manipulated them illegally, you MIGHT see it my way? That you and others think that way scares the utter crap out of me. This is private industry, people! The gov'ts job is NOT to run private industry for political or popular gain! If you really think Gov't is the solution, go spend some time in England, E. Europe, China or Russia... That's what our fate will be.
Am I happy with the way GM was run? No. Is it my decision? NO - I'm not a stock holder. So they should tell me (and anyone else) to pound sand. However, I place the blame of any car company ills straight in the hands of city, county, state and federal gov't along with the UAW. When your hands are tied, there's only so much you can do as an executive staff. When your most profitable vehicles are made almost illegal by gov't regulations, you're kind of hosed. And when the UAW would rather run the company into the ground while seeking public outcry against non-union workers than keep the company running, I have no idea how people can not fault them.
There's a reason the most efficient mfg plants are in Brazil - the UAW won't allow them to be built here. And now the UAW will own Chrysler and likely GM, with the gov't making the call as to which cars will be built. Mark my words, w/in 5 years, you'll see no SUV's or large vehicles from Chrysler and GM, and ultimately, the rules will be changed so that only the UAW/Gov't owned mfg's can be successful. We've already started down that path, and the free market has been villified, and will continue to do so.
Just step back for a moment and ask how you would feel if Geitner, Obama or Immanual stepped into your company and told you THEY didn't like how it was being run, that you get paid too much, that you should work for a union, that you make the wrong product. Precedent has been set, folks... Intentionally, I might add.
