Comments (10)

• T. Ralph Kays

  If George Bush can claim to be a stalwart supporter of the free market, then by comparison I see nothing wrong with GMs claims.

  Published: November 16, 2009 7:55 PM

• Shay

  And never mind the billions used in the cash for clunkers program. I figure that will cover part of the government loan, and that will never be repaid to taxpayers. BTW, "losing", not "loosing".

  Published: November 17, 2009 12:28 AM

• Loose

  It's not just losing it, it's loosing it. It let $1.2 billion loose in 3 months so it wants to let even more money loose. If you're too big to fail, you can't be let loose by everyone else but you can let everyone else's money loose.

  Published: November 17, 2009 3:24 AM

• Briggs

  Fixed...thank you Shay

  Published: November 17, 2009 7:03 AM

• Ohhh Henry

  I was reading this article about Geithner and the AIG bailout and it occurred to me that what happened last year was this ...

  Imagine there is a boy who delivers groceries to senior citizens all over town. But he also ran up gambling debts with bookies all over town. When his debts reached the point where his house and his bicycle will have to be seized by his creditors and sold off (at a great loss to the bookies), the City government is asked to step in. "His services are too important to lose." So the City is persuaded to use taxpayer money to pay off the bookies, and both the delivery boy and the bookies remain in operation, but this time subsidized by tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. The government makes a big show of taking "equity" in the grocery delivery and gambling operations and pretends to be outraged about the amount of tips and bonuses that the delivery boy and the bookies receive, but essentially what they have done is underwritten a massive and ongoing waste of money based on the absurd premise that if malinvestments are not made good and unprofitable activities are not subsidized, then positive investments and profitable activities will also be harmed.

  Published: November 17, 2009 11:46 AM

• Syrin

  The phrase really should be, "Too big to bail out".

  Published: November 17, 2009 12:57 PM

• bob

  I guarantee I can lose $1.2 billion better than GM can.

  Published: November 17, 2009 2:01 PM

• Shay

  In Ohhh Henry's story, what if the town didn't step in, the boy got his assets seized and perhaps was given a temporary limp. True, his services would be interrupted, but someone else could just step in to take up the slack. There would be some down-time and readjustment, but perhaps the buyers of the services would be more critical of the new provider's stability. By bailing out the careless delivery boy, they make it more difficult for a careful one to compete. They in effect make it more profitable to be excessively risky (or just unresponding to the market, as in the case of companies that deliver inferior products).

  And Syrin, how about "Too big to bail."
  

  Published: November 17, 2009 2:02 PM

• Too Big to Fail

  If it's too big to fail, why is it in trouble. It can't really be that big then.

  Published: November 17, 2009 4:10 PM

• Bruce Koerber

  G M

  Gigantic Malinvestment!

  Published: November 17, 2009 9:21 PM