|
This is where it all gets interesting. The government can regulate, yes, but the government is not permitted to compete with private enterprise EXCEPT in cases where that enterprise is necessary for the safety and core functions of the country. This is how the postal service is allowed to exist and compete with FedEx and UPS.
If the US federal government took over a controlling stake of GM (50% + 1 share), they would in effect be competing with Ford, Chrysler (assuming they aren't in the same situation), Toyota, etc. This would almost certainly be deemed illegal. So, I have a feeling that they will actually NOT have a controlling stake in GM. I know the reports were that the fed would get 50% of the common stock but it probably would be more like 49.9%.
Let's just say the fed does take a controlling stake in GM, what does that mean to the day-to-day operations? Well really not as much as you probably think. Most decisions are not voted on by the shareholders. The shareholders vote for the board of directors (which would probably become mostly government appointees, basically the "Auto Task Force" would be directly on the board). The board gets to hire/fire senior executives as well as make other massive decisions. The board does not vote on individual vehicles. They could, however, set the vision of greener vehicles. Things like brand closures would get a vote as well.
And as The Blur said, it's all about $. Yea they will probably attempt to use their position to influence greener vehicles but in the end, the government can't remain in the car business. We've already seen their ability to use regulation to drive greener vehicles so I don't think they need to have a controlling stake in the company.
In the end, not much will change. The fed will sell their stake as soon as they can. Remember, Obama doesn't really control these things. It's his financial people (one of whom was a Bush holdover) that do.
|