Fair game.(LETTERS TO THE EDITOR)(Letter to the Editor)

For once I am compelled to defend GM. As a former senior manager from a different Big Three firm, I find defending my long-time competitor to be counterintuitive. However, your May 16, 2005 article "Global Motors" requires a rebuttal. The general theme of the article is that GM colludes with the government, and then uses advantages gained there-from to ship plants and jobs overseas. I believe this perception is grossly misleading.

First of all, GM is a private corporation that has the right to pursue all legal avenues to produce profits to sustain itself. Seeking subsidies in whatever form available is not collusion, it is good business. For example, state governments regularly give tax breaks to companies to get them to set up business in their states, including GM and all its competitors. Foreign governments also give tax breaks and other subsidies to American companies to encourage them to bring technology and set up businesses to employ their people.

Secondly, when markets overseas reach a sustainable critical mass, economics dictate that building factories in those locations and selling locally is better for the corporate bottom line than exporting products from the U.S. Hence, factories have been built and sustained by the Big Three in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Japan (before 1950), Taiwan, Australia, and most recently, Thailand, India, and China. Japanese and European automakers also began to ...