Mike the Usurper wrote:
ubernoir wrote:
Not so long ago, corporate giants with names like PanAm, ITT and Montgomery Ward roamed the earth. They faded and were replaced by new companies with names like Microsoft, Southwest Airlines and Target. The U.S. became famous for this pattern of decay and new growth. Over time, American government built a bigger safety net so workers could survive the vicissitudes of this creative destruction — with unemployment insurance and soon, one hopes, health care security. But the government has generally not interfered in the dynamic process itself, which is the source of the country’s prosperity.
Here's an answer to the question, and I guarantee it's not the one Brooks is looking for. Given the current stock price of GM, rather than a $50 billion bailout, how about a $3-5 billion hostile takeover?
How about saying to Lee Iacoca, "Lee, we've created a new position with you in mind. It's called Undersecretary of Transportation - Governor General Motors. You'll effectively be CEO-GM, and your new "board of directors" is sitting in the big chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Your country is asking you to come back, for one last service. Are you up to the challenge?"
And before anyone reflex responds "omg! Socialism!" it would be best to actually think that one out. This isn't taking a public corp and nationalizing it, it's about forcing a change on one of the most mismanaged companies of the last 50 years because they're too stupid for the Darwinian market forces to work.
