U.S. Bets Billions on GM’s Resurgence

Obama Unveils Plan for Brief Bankruptcy, Nationalization

... the plan poses significant political risks for his administration. Obama is gambling billions that GM can rise again after years of decline. Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala

See All Reviews »

Review

Vincent Caminiti
4.1
by Vincent Caminiti - Jun. 2, 2009

This article was responsible and included facts. While I feel the title could have been better and still 'punchy', the article was a brief and contextually appropriate review of actual facts instead of unsubstantiated opinion that has been pervasive. It was a responsible report that managed to accomplish its goal without polarity.

The reality is, that to report this move as anything but risky would also be irresponsible. However, the article discusses, in brief, why the guarantees and transitional government investment role (by the US and Canada) provide mitigation of risk and help recalculate the odds to favor a win. I struggle with the metaphor of 'betting' because investing, while a gamble is not necessarily betting. Investment in the beleaguered auto-industry in the legally provided venue of bankruptcy is responsible not only to the obvious beneficiaries but to the stakeholders of GM. The engagement is far from academic. This is fundamental Capitalism, everything from reorganization to financial guarantees in order to fuel private investment in GM. This intervention is a Sea Wall in order to move GM to higher ground because it's foundation was compromised. This was decisive action - not an option. I am very encouraged that the private sector will be quick to repurchase the float of outstanding common stock. The government has used essential Capitalism in order solve this problem -yet the Illuminati with hot microphones and drive-time describe this as Socialism. Sure, they are capitalists too, just trying to keep the fire lit in order to make a living - but its still lying. Lying for a living. Sad.

See All Reviews »

Vincent's Rating

Overall
4.1

Good
from 20 answers
Quality
4.2
Facts
5.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
5.0
Insight
3.0
Sourcing
5.0
Style
5.0
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
4.0
Context
3.0
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
5.0
Originality
3.0
Relevance
5.0
Transparency
5.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »