On GM, structure of a debate.

By zombie.
My nemesis recently posted this story and had this to say about it:

And there in lies the catch 22... the government doesn't want to sell until it's either at "break even" or at least a little closer, however government ownership "hurts the company's reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions" so unless the government gets out of the company that may never happen. So as I keep asking of many of the governments plans: WHATS THE ENDGAME?
 

Now the entire article is only one paragraph long.

The Treasury Department is resisting General Motors' push for the government to sell off its stake in the auto maker, The Wall Street Journal reports. Following a $50 billion bailout in 2009, the U.S. taxpayers now own almost 27% of the company. But the newspaper said GM executives are now chafing at that, saying it hurts the company's reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions. Earlier this year, GM /quotes/zigman/1466682/quotes/nls/gmGM-1.70% presented a plan to repurchase 200 million of the 500 million shares the U.S. holds with the balance being sold via a public offering. But officials at the Treasury Department were not interested as selling now would lead to a multibillion dollar loss for the government, the newspaper noted.
 

We had a little argument because I refused to comment. Why should I? For a little background, this guy is a close friend despite how vehemently disagree on political matters. And since just about everything is politicised these days, that extends to... just about everything unfortunately. Now, why did I decline to engage in a discussion? My friend is a radio DJ, therefore in between songs he reads headlines and makes brief comments about them. The thing is, he can make those comments as pure assertions without any supporting evidence as though he was declaring that band X is superior to band Y or some reality show star is an idiot, etc. In matters of judgment, i.e. substantive issues that affect others, assertions are insufficient. Ideological assertions that imply the entire superstructure of heroes and villains, and ways the world works without evidence are invalid. No matter how much you want issue X to be resolved through force of will, it does not actually work that way.

A google search for "General Motors bailout" returns 3.3 million hits. Even if 99% of those are garbage there are still over 3,000 sources to search before making an informed judgement. Most people are not academics, and trying to seek out all sides of every issue would be impossible for anyone. Even academics have prejudices, it is how we deal with them that make us honest.

Now the crass part. My friend is a DJ, as such he primarily gets paid for flapping his gums on the air. I do not. I do not get paid for writing this blog either, which is a one reason I largely stopped. But at least in this format I can get a whole point across without being interrupted. Lecturing as opposed to debating in text format.

First of all, the story DJ posted was more of a stub and the WSJ posted more here. Still not a lot of information, but a little better. At least it gives us the parameters the WSJ is willing to state and not simply the latest update that GM's management is whining and the Federal Government is unwilling to stick the taxpayers with a $15 billion loss. This is a "straight" news report, expressing the events, players, and each side's concerns. No comment is apparent.

If you went down to the next item on the list, you would find this editorial from Forbes' contributor

Micheline Maynard who writes:

GM is obviously frustrated at the “Government Motors” tag that’s adhered to it since it took a $50 billion bailout, and it’s understandable that it would like to sail under its own power. But there’s a big reason why Treasury should hang onto its GM shares, at least for a while longer.
Treasury was the only entity that could get GM to change. And if Treasury pulls out now, there is no guarantee that GM won’t revert to the behavior that sent it looking for a government bailout and into an Obama Administration directed bankruptcy. (emphasis mine)
Without Treasury’s presence, even just as a stakeholder, that old GM could come flooding back.
Look how many years analysts suggested that GM should get rid of some of its dying brands, like Hummer, Pontiac and Saturn. Despite dwindling market share and mounting costs, it was still clinging to some of them until weeks before its bankruptcy.
The role that the auto task force played in GM’s restructuring gives Treasury a bigger stake in GM’s future than just the value of its shares. Endless hours of time and effort were involved, and beyond that, there was finally a force greater than GM to make it face reality.

 A related story linked to this one by Joann Muller argues that this is not a Catch-22 at all.

For GM, there’s really only one solution: Forget worrying about the stock price and get on with running the business. GM has some enormous challenges in the near-term. It’s about to embark on a huge sequence of important product launches that will result in 70 percent of its vehicle lineup being new, or thoroughly redesigned. Most important is a new family of pickup trucks and SUVs, along with redesigns of the Chevrolet Impala and Corvette. Launching these vehicles flawlessly will be critical to GM’s success. (emphasis mine)

So here are just two opinion pieces from credible writers at a media outlet not exactly known to be friendly to government or liberalism and especially not to the dread "socialism." What did the WSJ story do? Under the pretense of objective reporting, the story set up a false dilemma fallacy. GM wants what it wants and it wants it right now. Government is the bad guy for acting like any other investor and not wanting to eat its investment. So, in just two short articles the false dilemma is shot down and GM's residual old line managers revealed to be insolent children throwing a tantrum. What do I "think" about this issue? Does it even matter? The point is when you make an assertion in a vacuum, it is intellectually dishonest. When you act like a logical fallacy is valid, the joke's on you.