preview

GM Bailout Essay

Good Essays

Case Study: The GM Bailout Kimberly Covey September 1, 2016 Northeastern State University Introduction The case study details the financial crisis that befell General Motors. The company had suffered a loss of $81 billion over the last four years. The C.E.O approached the U.S government for a bailout using a fund enacted by the Senate dubbed TARP meant to bail out financial institutions that were on the verge of bankruptcy due to the looming financial crisis. Many automakers were facing a financial crunch and kept having losses. The C.E.O, Wagner, managed to convince the government to bail them out using funds from TARP fund. After a detailed plan from General Motors, the bailout was approved. The bailout stirred a lot controversy …show more content…

Therefore, when the old GM went to ask for a bailout from the government Locke would say that they were surrendering their natural rights and would be opposed to the idea. He would also be opposed to it since they would no longer be operating in a free market by selling controlling shares to the government. Smith, on the other hand, believed in a utilitarian economy. He would strongly oppose to the company's move to Approach the government for a bailout. Rather, he would suggest that the company stays in a free market, design a product that would be highly demanded by consumers and sell it. He would argue that the high demand for the product would end up raising the prices of the products, which translates to more profits, and eventually, the company will be able to bail itself out. This is what he termed the ‘invisible hand’, which referred to market competition or market forces. Marx was an advocate of capitalism and based on that he would be supportive of the idea by the government owning a stake in companies affected by the financial crisis provided it does eliminate the working class. He would, however, be against the effect of socialism created by the government influencing the society through an ownership stake in these …show more content…

One is the fact that the bailout was saving many Americans their jobs by ensuring these companies stay afloat. GM had many employees and many retirees that depended on the company, and if the company closed down, it would render so many people jobless and without a source of income. On the other hand, according to the law of utilitarianism, it was ethical for the government to lend a helping hand to GM to keep the company afloat. The initial agreement between GM and the government provided the option of the company redeeming its stake back from the government once they achieved financial stability. Unfortunately, this never came to be. The government invested taxpayers’ money in a collapsing company that was experiencing losses year in year out. This was unethical; the company should have bailed itself out from this crisis since there were other automotive companies still afloat. Justice dictates that since it is GM that got themselves into this mess, then the same company should figure out a way out of the same mess. This is true since even when the government opted to bail out GM, it was the company that drew up a plan that would give them financial stability. Therefore, one would argue that GM should have figured out a way to solve their financial crisis by selling out the non-profitable plants and sections of the company and cutting costs to become profitable once more. They should also have invested in

Get Access