Not sure if I have stated my position on this earlier so here it goes. The big three may have to become the big two. No bailout thanks.

Mitt Romney writing in today's NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/op...romney.html?hp

I don't much like Romney but I think he's spot on here... Good find.

This tends to tie in with my views earlier today. :yep:

i do not completly agree with that point of view , if the state's a shareholder he has a right of look and it can impose the restructuration

No bailout without a plan...
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7740670.stm

Well, I guess the Big 3 CEOs will just have to fly back home in their $20,000.00 a trip private jets and work it out... They can explain also to the "rank and file" how NOT to impress Senators and Congressmen...

restructuration's inevitable and has already been made far ago by european brands which because of that find themselves today in a relative sane economic condition

Depends on the percentage of stock they hold. 51% is the absolute ruler over 49% in this game.

in theory but with less you can impose yourself as the main executive ... i was watching a documentary few days ago french politics that i personnaly consider when they were asked about the question they said that the main problem of the US cars companies was that they didn't made their restructuration while at the same time the EU brands did it

Yes, no the best way to sell a shortage of money! http://business.smh.com.au/business/...1120-6cvm.html