Still, I can't avoid the news of this event entirely, as I'm exposed to the GM news through my Twitter stream, StockTwits, and the recent posts from some bloggers I keep up with.
The disgusting spectacle of this government-engineered IPO (made possible with your taxpayer dollars) was but an ugly image in my mind until I found Greg Harmon's tweet on StockTwits' GM stream. Now I have the shocking, surreal life photo to go with it:
Subtlety is dead in America. You are being ripped off and the banner proclaiming it is staring you right in the face. It is a disgusting spectacle indeed, to see the announcement of GM's post-bailout IPO draped over the American flag and the columns of one of our most revered capitalist institutions, the NYSE.
Last night I read an article in which GM's CFO Chris Liddell described the then-upcoming share offering as "historic". Historic is not the word I would have used to describe it. A farce and a national shame would be much closer to the mark.
Meanwhile, GM CEO Dan Akerson had this to say about the IPO and its effect on reducing the US government's stake in GM:
""They have taken their ownership down by roughly half," he said. "I would say that the average taxpayer in the United States would look at this particular transaction as very positive.".
Well it's nice to know the government is reducing its ownership stake in GM, but let me stop here and point out the use of the word transaction to describe this unseemly state of affairs. "Transaction"?!
A transaction is an exchange that occurs between two or more willing parties. Did US taxpayers have a say in any of this? Were you consulted on the auto industry bailout or were you given an opportunity to vote on whether your money could be used to prop up a failing enterprise such as this? How many IPO shares of the "new GM" were allocated to your account today in exchange for your kind support?
Before I go off the deep end completely, let me point you to Jeff Carter's excellent post on the GM IPO over at Points and Figures. Read it, and check out Francine McKenna's Forbes blog post on GM's unaudited financial statements while you're at it. Then get back to me if you still think this is a wonderful, "historic" investment opportunity or an "exciting" chapter in our country's history.
3 comments:
Imagine your world where everyone voted on everything - whether informed or not. You may think this is nifty - maybe even desirable, but only because you've not thought it through and are blinded by parochial ideological boundaries.
Rather, I am quite pleased to delegate in my business and in government. Sometimes I am disappointed, but that is the price of delegation and democracy - for good or bad. Don't like it - get yourself a Kaczynski-cabin.
The fact is that the positive externalities of The State's intervention in this case are massively and almost wholly positive - except for GM labour, but even here they were probably forced to accept cuts and changes that will save their jobs in the longer run.
Yes, if you'd have preferred to transfer your tax dollars to GM workers NOT to work, now and the future, that is your choice, but I prefer to to help them restructure so I do not have to pay them, and the workers caught in GMs chain of supply, now and in the future.
There is much precedent for this, not all positive, but much, and you should quit your whinging.
Thanks for the comment, Anon.
I'm not necessarily saying everyone should vote on everything that happens in America. History has shown that direct democracy usually devolves over time into a mob rule, where the majority can enforce its will over over a minority, taking away their rights in the process.
What I am saying in this post is that a transfer of US citizens' money toward failed companies is wrong from a moral and practical standpoint. It is pure theft, and the debts we are piling up for the present and future generations (in the name of "saving the economy") may well prove disastrous.
Yes, I believe it's wrong for the government to take US citizens' money and/or incur huge debts without so much as a simple vote or a debate on whether or not these actions are legal under the US Constitution.
Call me a pathetic idealogue, but the America I love is a nation where rule of law is respected and honored. The rule of law is now being violated and replaced with government's ad hoc "solutions".
Precedents you cite of prior bailout actions were similarly wrong (and probably illegal) and only served to foster the moral hazard risks we find ourselves paying for today. We will continue to pay in the future as the little-examined, unseen costs of these interventions impact our economy for years to come.
Great to hear that the IPO is doing well.
Post a Comment