No, GM didn't pay everything off, and no, you can't sue them for defects on your 2007 Impala

Just thought I'd post this here so that we're not tempted to believe the hype on GM.

GM has now argued in a class action suit that it is NOT the manufacturer of the 2007 and 2008 Chevrolet Impala and therefore it isn't liable for defective suspension components. The company has responded that the new firm, New GM, was responsible only for warranty coverage. It said

"New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."

Huh?

Let me ask though: if New GM isn't responsible, who is? If 2008 Impalas started bursting into flames tomorrow because of a manufacturing defect, who would we sue? Doesn't that say a lot about the bankruptcy process here?

As I noted here in April of '10, this shouldn't be surprising. GM isn't the same company it was; THAT firm went out of business before paying off what it owed but after wrecking the bankruptcy precedent. This is the best proof yet of the bureaucratic double-speak on this.

OK, who saw this coming?

UAW cleans up on sale of new GM stock. (Click on title)

No way!

More on the saga as it comes to light. No surprises from GM, though.

WalMart takes John Lennon's advice

Saint John of Liverpool is known to have said "Follow the money." He was probably onto something.

WalMart has started following the money on its opposition. In particular, they've found that the "grass roots" movement against them goes back to competitors such as Safeway, and the unions that represent workers at competitor firms.

Ya think?

This is how this looks to the trained eye:

Safeway (and their union workers, evidently) can't actually compete with WalMart, so they use public opinion, propaganda, land-use consultants and a team of lawyers to fight them instead.

Welcome to the new America folks.

One of the consultants was quoted:

"The work we do helps to level the playing field as regular citizens try to fight back against the world's largest retailer and the impact of big-box development in their communities."

Right.

As we've discussed in class from time to time, you should always "follow the money." When you hear that WalMart or whatever company is ruining things for everyone, destroying a way of life, etc. you need to put on your Thinking Cap and figure out who stands to benefit.

Health Insurance Companies Follow Logic, Reason

There are reports that major health insurance providers are ending their child-only coverage in response to a new federal mandate that goes into effect tomorrow.

In other news, Earth is expected to orbit the Sun, etc.

This is what happens after regulation passes: people respond rationally. Insurance companies cannot refuse pre-existing conditions or other characteristics, so how could they possibly afford to offer coverage. The only way they could offer coverage to some would be to cheat others.

In the story, some advocacy type (moocher) is complaining that it's "immoral" on the part of the insurance company. Ahem - it would be immoral to pass costs on to everyone, too. Pick which one you want to see implemented.

I'm guessing that the plan is to pass these laws, push companies out of the market, and then say "look, markets don't work, we need a PUBLIC OPTION." That's how these guys think -- THEY know what's best, and THEY'RE going to give it to us.

The worst part is that the jerks in Congress who pass this kind of stuff are using "markets" to destroy markets. There's nothing market-based about a law that requires insurance companies (who are state-regulated, by the way) to cover certain people or to violate their own cost situation to cover pre-existing conditions. Regulation does not equal market.

Congress knows what it's doing, I'd bet. They're not stupid.

Maybe scary. But certainly not stupid.