Did a quick Google search and found this recent article in Forbes:
I read that article. (from your link)
That article makes a subjective opinion about the market penetration and market dominance (or lack thereof) of GM, which we all at some level think of as a powerhouse brand name. I believe the article is fairly well argued; but I also think it is important to distinguish between “bankrupt” as a subjective writer might term a “sales downturn resulting from poor engineering or styling choices” versus “bankrupt” as an accounting/legal status.
I don’t really know the answer here, I am just pointing out that my prior posts on this thread related to the accounting/legal meaning of BK. I’m not sure GM could even go BK (acctg/legal) at this point; the government would lose so much money bailing it out (again) that IMO the US Gov is absolutely committed, 0bama or not, to keeping the company going. It very well may be that the Govt loses less money keeping GM in biz, even if they operate at a massive loss, rather than paying unemployment for the workers (and the workers in support industries, eg; steel, plastics, rubber)
I really don’t know. Perhaps the whole thing is just waiting for the next genius to come along to figure out how they and their pals can strip a few more billions out of the carcass. Then we’ll be informed of the “new plan for GM”.