Bush started it, you approve of it. Interesting. I guess you guys were not as really as far a part as you pretended.
The company is nationalized because most of the ownership of the company is in the hands of the government, well two of them, the US and Canada, although mostly the US. I don't know what the current percentage is post-IPO, but before that it was 60% just for the US government. That's a pretty large majority share of stock. The owners determine the board, which appoints the CEO. And fires the CEO. Just ask Rick Wagoner!
So I'm not sure how Geithner can say that they have a hands off approach.
As far as my doom and gloom prediction, based on recent sales I would say it's right on track!
http://tinyurl.com/6ejco72My prediction about GM is that with a bailout, the company would limp along without making the major changes needed to innovate and grow. That was exactly the purpose of the administration restructuring plan, to prevent the paring down of the company that would have occurred in true bankruptcy proceedings.
Look at Chrysler. It got a bailout in the 80's, and that was called a success simply because the company paid back their loans. But the company has just limped along going from one owner to another until, yes more bailouts. Some success.
Sometimes a company, like Gotham City, needs a good enema. Preventing that doesn't do the company any favors, it's purely political.
When GM regains it's old market share and kicks Honda's ass off the top ten list all the way back to Japan, then yes, you can say the restructuring and bailout was a success. I won't be holding my breath though.
(fixt your link to make it shorter)
