Hmm... "(Obama) announced the bankruptcy of General Motors and the government’s decision to invest another $30 billion in the company, take a 60% ownership stake in the beleaguered automaker, and take control of a number of slots on the board of directors." www.politico.com/story/2009/0...
1/ That’s inaccurate. Read the Wikipedia article. The GM that existed before the bankruptcy no longer exists and its shares were canceled. Obama declined to provide loans to GM. The government invested in a new company that bought GM assets (including the name).
2/ The federal government ultimately invested 51 billion and sold its shares for 39 billion. There was never an intention to hold the shares long term or for investment as Trump is doing. Socialism? Sure. Ownership of the commanding heights of American industry.
It isn't socialism. It is functionally no different from a bailout.
Depends on how you define socialism. When I took economics classes it was government ownership of industry. People throw the term around as a scare tactic though. Details are more important than labels.
3/ Saving the US auto industry from collapse was arguably the right decision at the time. You’re welcome to argue otherwise. You can’t argue GM shareholders were bailed out though. They simply were not.
4/ A better government may have prevented systematic problems in the industry as well as in the financial markets avoiding the entire 2008/9 crisis. Or alt least preventing them from being too big to fail. 11 billion was probably cheaper than the consequences of not doing it.