Hacker News Reader

Comment by Locke | Hacker News Reader

It baffles me that we'd blow 700 billion bailing out financial institutions that caused our economic problems. Money that's now going towards bonuses and acquisitions instead of buying "toxic assets" as originally intended. Toxic assets that were created by these same wall street companies.

As we save the companies that crippled the credit markets, we have no interest in spending a fraction of that same amount of money helping the companies most negatively effected by the condition of those same credit markets.

I'm sorry, but I don't see anyone buying a car from a manufacturer in bankruptcy. I think bankruptcy will be the end of the American auto manufacturers. The resulting damage will dwarf the 25 billion a bailout would cost.

View on HN

David brooks explained the difference really well. The bailout of wall st. Was a bailout of the entire financial system. If it didn't happen comapnies would not be able to borrow any money. Forget who it's from. If we don't bail out the big three we will all still be able to buy tons of different kinds of cars. (Can't send link from iPhone)

Small businesses were affected by the financial crisis more than people realize. Businesses with long sales cycles (e.g. media companies, advertising companies) often use commercial paper to finance their short term recurring financial expenses (payroll expenses, rent, etc).

No bailout, no commercial paper, no paycheck.

are you trying to tell me that gm is simply a victim of the credit crisis???

why would a bank loan them money now?? aren't we all about responsible lending now?? lending money to gm is the corporate equivalent of a subprime loan. we don't want banks making subprime loans anymore.

Yes. How do people buy cars? On credit. Harder to get credit means fewer people capable of buying cars. A bad economy means fewer people buying cars. GM et al, did not create the credit crisis. They did not create the bad economic conditions.

But we want them, and more importantly, all the people working in that industry to suffer? Honestly, I can't imagine how letting them fail won't cause more than 25 billion in economic damage.

You think giving them $25 billion is going to be the end of it? They'll just be out of cash again in 6 months, asking for another bailout.

They build cars nobody wants anymore, credit or no credit.

GM is still #2 in sales worldwide.

Then why do they have a problem?

Financial wing GMAC got killed by subprime, the credit crunch, gas prices... all that on top of lagging sales. Sure, some of that perfect storm is their own fault. But, it's not as simple as "their cars suck" and "the workers make too much money".

If everyone pays for the things that are not their own fault, then the playing field is leveled. Then the things that are their own fault come into play, and those parties who were hit by the common problems AND their own problems will suffer more than those who didn't have their own problems (or had smaller self inflicted problems). Seems this is the way it should be.

Well if gas prices and credit crunch lead to people shunning big cars, then GM builds the wrong type of cars. I don't think you can blame the gas price on an evil conspiracy.

Then they are even LESS deserving of a bailout, no?

GM did create part of the credit crisis. DiTech.com. Its primary business was the variable-rate (aka "teaser rate") ARMs and home equity re-financing. In short, GM put a sizable amount of cash into the sub-prime loan market, and got burned just like everyone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com