The government wouldn't take any bit of the profit, with exception of the stock value when they sell it.
I've read in multiple places the number for that was more like 39%...and again, it's all a temporary discussion. They are seeking to put stock in place of cash, because they don't have any...eventually, that stock will have to turn into cash; It's being used to fund the VEBA...and you can't buy health insurance with stock...
You could argue that point, yes...but then explain to me why they made such a hassle about loaning the money in the first place...it's just "chump change", right?
They are politicking. And if they make money off the stock, which they WILL, then the administration can turn to the taxpayers and say "look what we did for you guys"....it is about power, yes...but there is no benefit power-wise for them to hold a majority stake in GM...they don't know wtf they're doing, and they know it. Government regulation of vehicles will stay limited to CAFE and friends, not the boardroom of General Motors. You surely agree that the country would be in an uproar if there was a blatant "nationalization" of such a large corporation. Without getting into it, the nation would go from blue to red overnight........
**IF** they run it at all...again -- this is what I meant when I said that about "fear". Perhaps it was the wrong word; but the point remains -- there's a group of folks already assuming that the government will own GM!! Hell, there's been two misguided people that've already abandoned Camaro because of it!!!
#1; this is still a PROPOSAL. The gov't has not agreed to take the stock, yet -- and they very well may NOT. That would be an added force to send the company into that "surgical" bankruptcy, which - I'll admit, looks mildly appealing.
#2; The treasury...the President, GM PR, and the CEO himself have all said, repeatedly, that the government has
"no intentions of controlling or running General Motors Corporation." The question then becomes do you believe them...all of them...or not? If not...fine. But be advised that you have
no evidence to the contrary until something 'happens'.
I agree with the first half -- with one addition, there MUST be a happy medium. We were in it for the better half of the last century...we must find that again, as over-regulation can cripple the market.
I disagree with your last statement. Private business is all about making money, and serving their stakeholders...people can be fired in private business for failing to do that, so they are always hard at work with fulfilling that criteria, with the occasional exception. Whereas gov't officials are elected, for the most part, willy-nilly. Very few actually know what they're doing, and getting a goal completed satisfactorily is a rare occasion due to the nature of beaurocracy. They cannot be fired without going through a long and dragged out process, and they answer to their most valuble ($$$) supporters, not the public at large. The exception to this rule is rare, but welcome.
Rules are set in place by the gov't. Yes...but of the two entities, which is more likely to break the rules? the guy who has to follow them, or the guy who made them?
Those are the characters of the two entities as I have observed them for the past twenty years or more if you include outsider's input I have gathered. Would you disagree with the above assesment? If so...why? But if not -- who would you really rather trust? They guy you can fire if he screws up, or the guy who can't get anything done to begin with?