• Mac@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The US government made back more money than they gave to GM when they bailed them out.

    So either the US government should get a return above a certain percentage or if not then the company should be nationalized.

    • brdweb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Wrong. Let them fail. Well-run competitors will scoop up what’s left.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Depends on how competitive the industry is. The US only has two major auto makers left (I’m not counting tesla) and are mainly losing out to foreign car makers, which are also just a few that sell in the US. You cut out a significant chunk of competition in an area that you only have other large entities that will fill the roll (no one can start mass producing cars all of a sudden).

        Then it’s like cell service. You only get 3 options and they’re all expensive. You don’t get a new one that comes in. Only the existing ones get bigger and have less competition.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Did GM, Ford, or Chevy stop making cars?

          Edit: I see, GM bought Chevy. When the hell did that happen? I’m guessing 2008…

          • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            While we’re on it, Stellantis owns Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, and Maserati, now.

            Generally speaking, everything they touch turns to crap quality, IMO. I’d never buy anything from them without counting on it being a money pit.

            Really, only about a dozen or so auto manufacturers exist that own like 50 brands.

      • weeeeum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The problem is the consequences of certain companies failing. It’s sort of a threat, if I (company) fail the country’s economy/security/etc is going to fail/die.

        It’s kind of like having your heater die in -50 degrees winter. Even if it’s a piece of shit, a new one is gonna take too long to ship and install, and you can’t survive long without it.

        It sucks but it’s the reality of the situation. Companies that know that they have this position of necessity can abuse it to make risky investments.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Okay. So we rescue them and then split them up. Companies are not more important than people or a country.

          • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Once we’ve paid for the essential company, why not keep it? The market has already demonstrated it can’t deliver this essential product/service.