Can someone explain how General Motors slipped into the new Global Dow?

Dow Jones describes the index on its Web site as "a 150-stock index of the most innovative, vibrant and influential corporations from around the world."

It adds, "Only leading blue-chip stocks are included in the index."

Really? Here's how Merriam-Webster defines blue chip:

Main Entry: blue chip
Function: noun
Date: 1929
1 a: a business or undertaking with an outstanding record or likelihood of profitability b: a stock issue of high investment quality that usually pertains to a substantial well-established company and enjoys public confidence in its worth and stability; also: a company that offers such stocks

Anyone else see the disconnect?

Does GM have an "outstanding record or likelihood of profitability?" Does it "enjoy public confidence in its worth and stability"?

The only reason I can think of that GM was included is because it is still included in the U.S. Dow Jones industrial average. Dow Jones included all 30 components of the DJIA in the new Global Dow, and they probably didn't want to single out GM as unworthy. But as the old saying goes, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

The best solution would have been to boot GM from the DJIA and replace it with a real "blue chip." Barring that, they should have simply left it on the sidelines for the Global Dow.

(For what it's worth, I love that Dow Jones launched the Global Dow. They deserve special credit for launching the product at a market nadir, rather than waiting for the good times to return. But GM's inclusion is a miss.)

Should GM Go Bankrupt?

All that said, I can't let Jim's rant about GM go without comment. It's fine to talk about principles and ending corporate socialism, but let's have a dose of reality on GM. What would a GM bankruptcy really mean?

• It would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, right now, at the point where our economy can least afford job losses.
• It would mean a crushing blow to U.S. consumer confidence, at the point when consumers are already retreating in a climate of fear.
• It would place taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in unfunded pension mandates ($35 billion according to the PBGC).
• It would mean permanently reduced income for hundreds of thousands of retirees, and added pressure on our social support networks.

(It would also mean, of course, that, Jim's long-term stock holding in GM would be wiped out completely.)

To an extent, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I think I favor allowing GM to go bankrupt and emerge as a stronger, leaner company. But given the scope of the potential fallout, and the precarious situation of the economy, let's muzzle our inner John Galt and leave a little room for nuance.

BTW: There are plenty of interesting things you could do with a bailout. What if we put in place eco/energy conditions—not minor CAFE standard stuff, but conditions that would create a Manhattan project for improving fuel efficiency in the U.S. auto industry? What if we gave the auto industry cash but required a massive investment in natural gas-powered cars, or required a complete conversion to a hybrid fleet?