rh13

DHL, GM: Does Failure Have Consequences?

Actually, I think GM is too big to save. It is about the most bloated, insular, self-centered to the point of self-defined, company on earth. Throwing money at it will do what? It will help preserve GM in its present form. Do we need that? I certainly do not.
The phrase, "Too big to fail," was properly applied to financial institutions. Even there, the concept is arguable, but the idea was that, since people depend so heavily on a functioning financial system, the sudden, outright failure of a company big enough to be a critical part of the financial system might deprive people of services that allow the economy to hum.
That reasoning may be right or it may be wrong. (We'd have to guess it's wrong, since the decision was made by and for the financial industry.) Anyway, it does not apply to automobile manufacturers of any description. In Cuba, people are making do with cars manufactured in the 1950's. In New York and London, people get around by train. Even if I do need a car, I can get by with a Honda made in Tennessee, a Subaru made in Indiana, a Mazda made in Michigan, or perhaps a Tesla made in California.
Despite its failures, GM has done pretty well considering that its cost of employing people in union jobs is about twice what other auto makers experience. "Saving" GM without changing that doesn't fix anything, it just delays the day of reckoning.