[jasode]

>That seems more of a technicality than a practicality [...] the fact that the actual legal entity changes, matters for shit.

If I can go a meta layer above this subthread and explain the 2 different conversations happening:

- the gp (maxerickson) comment was responding to "2008 GM nearly went under", and it's correct (not technicality) that the old_company (with its own assets-liabilities) did go under. Not "nearly", but completely went under. A new_company was created as different legal entity with a clean slate to pick and choose assets-liabilities.[1]

- the other replies (Aloha, wil421) are more philosphical "Ship of Theseus"[2] type of arguments

All 3 (maxerickson, Aloha, wil421) can simultaneously be right because they are all emphasizing different aspects of what "General Motors" means. It can be either "GM the assets&liabilities" or "GM the brand, the public perception".

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11primer.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

[Aloha]

Yes, I was indeed making a 'Ship of Theseus' argument - specifically, GM's obligations to its current and some obligations to former employees was not extinguished by the bankruptcy.

I was also arguing that the bankruptcy was immaterial to GM's moral obligation to 'share the wealth' when times are good.