Here’s my opinion:

Point 1 – I Disagree b/c I think you are trying to equate apples and oranges. I’m not suggesting than nobody will buy an automobile from a bankrupt company, but it will most certainly hurt their sales in an already challenged selling environment. My premise is that people will be less likely to purchase a car from a bankrupt manufacturer b/c they believe the quality of their product will diminish and there will not be a going concern around to honor the warranty on their purchase. Drawing a comparison to a bankrupt airline is not appropriate because in the case of airlines you are purchasing a service (a flying taxi) vs. a long-lived asset. You use an airline to get from point to point, and after the conclusion of your trip your relationship is over if you choose it to be. Circuit City is a retailer, not a manufacturer. Result – buying a TV from Circuit City has no impact on the buyer’s warranty of their product (unless they purchased a supplemental warranty, which are still often times insured by a 3rd party vendor with a kickback to the retailer). Village Inn Restaurant is truly no comparison – it’s a $10 throwaway meal so I won’t even begin to compare. If an “organized” bankruptcy is the proposed solution, a better supplement to that may be to deposit cash or equivalents (not company stock) into a third party trust to cover all of the projected warranty obligations. This could also be used as a marketing tactic to make consumers feel more at ease that there will be someone around to pay for their car service. However, that adds additional complexity under creditor’s rights laws as well.

Point 2 – I mostly agree, however I doubt it will raise any cash at all. GM should just look to offload this b/c it’s a distraction and not a core competency. Think Delphi from 10-15 years ago. Once again, there will be challenges. The capital markets have zero appetite to fund a transaction of this nature. Most recently, look at how Cerberus has been crushed by Chrysler and last I checked, Delphi was in bankruptcy protection. Do you really think Wal-Mart has an appetite to absorb that kind of risk? What is their upside? Does GM provide a guarantee that all replacement parts will be purchased from Wal-Mart? What is the price structure? GM would likely just have to give away these divisions and more likely have to pay someone to take them.

Point 3 – Transparency seems to be the latest business buzzword along with “Bailout.” Companies need to be more transparent about their bailouts…what the does that even mean anyway? It seems to me that in a roundabout way you are saying that consumers won’t buy GM because they don’t understand how their invested tax dollars in these companies are being utilized. Well, I would argue that the average taxpayer/consumer (since we are grouping them together) only cares about “bailouts” with two very broad-stroked brushes and not much in between. One, they generally aren’t in favor of paying for others mistakes and second, they want to know what is the bottom-line impact to their personal financial status. If anyone were interested in hearing the details of how GM intended to use the taxpayer money (which was essentially to use is it as a working capital bridge), then they were allowed to attend the congressional hearing or tune into CSPAN, or in at least GM’s case, visit their website. There was a link on their homepage. It’s also published testimony under the Freedom of Information Act. I think the desired outcome of being more “transparent” needs to be more clearly defined.

Point 4 – I agree. They do need to eliminate product duplication and, in cases where there is no brand differentiation or awareness, eliminate brands too. I am from Detroit; I know the difference between a Chevy Silverado and a GMC Sierra. I know the difference between a Chevy Tahoe and a GMC Yukon. But does anyone else care that much which badge is plastered on their car? If you don’t like the Tahoe fully-loaded and it’s not “pimped out” enough for you then buy an Escalade. There is only a need for two brands, maybe three – Entry-level (maybe, but not so in my opinion), Mainstream, and Premium/Luxury. This could be all consolidated into Chevy and Cadillac. Someone has yet to define what is the value of Buick/Pontiac brands? Is Buick luxury? If so, then why have a Cadillac brand? Is Pontiac performance? Then why the Corvette and Camaro branded under the Chevy name badge?

Point 5 – I agree in the general sense that GM needs to reconnect with the consumer, but I believe the idea of American Company for Americans is a quickly becoming an obsolete gesture. GM is a publicly traded company. Last I checked anyone could own shares in GM not just Americans. Same goes for Toyota, and BMW and Daimler AG. GM just so happens to have a headquarters in Detroit and has some manufacturing facilities based in the U.S. Well so does Toyota and Honda. You get my point. I agree they should acknowledge they are receiving taxpayer loans (remember at this point the U.S. Government is a creditor, not an Equity holder) and I think they should report on their progress of repayment of those loans on a quarterly basis, but I also believe all companies receiving government subsidies should be required to report as such.

Point 5A – From an altruistic standpoint, this sounds great but it will never happen. They will not alienate their customer base rooted in the oil & gas industries plus we currently don’t have a tax structure that incentivizes business to reinvest in energy efficiency…yet.

Point 5B – There’s that word again, Transparent…

Point 5C – Ok, once again this sounds good on paper. What about legacy costs? Who picks up the tab on those? What exactly is the “new model” for American manufacturing in a globalized economy? Do we pay employees a “living wage” in America and apply extensive tariffs on goods imported from “cheap” labor countries? Do we close off our borders to foreign imports in general? Do we buy we keep printing dollars at such a level that we deflate our own currency to the point where it’s cheaper for other countries to pay us to build their stuff? Do we demand year after year that our manufacturing employees take wage/benefit cuts until the companies are at the “ultimate” level-playing field with their competition? Maybe $100/month or so compensation for the average worker is a good number? It’s a vicious deflationary cycle. I don’t pretend to have the answer, nor am I a proponent of socialism. However, it seems to me that the prudent answer would be to foster an environment of innovation that leads to demand for newer high-skilled manufacturing jobs that you can’t immediately be outsourced to cheap labor countries. That’s easier said than done though. We definitely have our work cut out for us as a nation.

Not trying to rain on your parade, I think we need everyone’s input in order to turn this thing around…cheers!