Fred Swartz

GM and Chrysler: Why's Bankruptcy So Expensive?

As with many Big 3 auto company pronouncements, there is little reason to believe it. It looks more like a scare tactic.

Downsizing seems to be in the works, but scanty details from the restructuring plan suggest that they haven't managed to entirely reduce their debt, get free from all health obligations, or get employee costs in the range of their US (transplant) competitors.

Bankruptcy wouldn't be a pretty picture, but it surely must be less expensive in the long run than continuing with a higher cost basis, incompetent management, and taxpayer assistance.

Nothing new in my post; just a long agreement with you to work out my frustrations.

The Autos and Mentality That Ruined Detroit

Giving money to companies with a failed business model is foolish..

Things will have to change, and change will mean a lot of pain for workers, since demand for the American auto products will likely continue to decline for the next few years, as it has since 1962.

Radical changes might save the auto companies, but this would mean replacing the current management / UAW with their broken mentality.

Reorganization under Chapter 11, possibly with help from the government, seems like the only feasible way to achieve the changes that are needed.

Should We Really Bail Out the Big Three Automakers with $73.20 Per Hour Labor?

BANKRUPTCY is the solution :-(

Sadly, the only way GM and the unions (both at fault for many reasons given above) will restructure is through some drastic act like reorganizing through bankruptcy. Bankruptcy isn't necessarily the end of a company, but gives it a chance to get out of the mess it's in and have somewhat of a fresh start.

Giving taxpayer money (or just printing it) to the current dysfunctional companies would only prolong their painful demise. They need to be motivated to change.

Their main business plan seems to be to ask the government for money (Oh yes, they did kill the electric car a while ago and plan a new one in a small production run in a couple of years).

Q: Why aren't stockholders insisting on throwing out upper management? Is so much of the stock owned by "insiders" who are benefiting from the status quo?

General Motors: Beginning the Endgame?

Allowing the auto companies to fail would be a mistake, yet the prospect of giving them our money to continue their disastrously bad ways is also unacceptable.

Until there are big changes (radical downsizing, brand consolidation, serious small car production, union giveups, ...), they shouldn't be given taxpayer money.

Why haven't we heard more about replacing management? Why aren't the stockholders more active?