That may be your interpretation of my argument, but you are incorrect.

 

You stated that comparing GM to a business was "specious" because the government is not a business and instead exists "to support the general welfare of our populace".

What other interpretation is there?

If you don't mean to say something... then don't say it.

 

You misinterpreted what I said, either intentionally or unintentionally. The government does exist to promote the welfare of its citizenry. I believe it was in the best interest of the United States to ensure that our automotive industry did not disappear. From an economic standpoint as well as from a public policy standpoint. We've demonstrated that really there was no cost even with an $11B loss on the sale of GM stock because of the costs it avoided in terms of unemployment , lost tax revenues, etc.

IMHO this has been a win on every level, economically, publicly. You obviously disagree but the argument is pointless because it's done.

 

Demonstrated how? Through the misguided proselytizing of an industry lobbying group?

The assumptions you make are the same that others have already made in this thread, and they're absurd. The entire automotive industry would have disappeared had GM not been bailed out??? GM's employees wouldn't have kept their jobs through a bankruptcy reorganization or been re-hired after a liquidation? The productive assets of GM wouldn't ever have been put to use and generated tax revenues again?

Why is there this galling misconception held by numerous people who have posted in this thread that when a company goes bankrupt, everything suddenly vanishes? Does anyone actually really believe that? The factories just disappear? The patents, trademarks, value of the marketing/branding, and the ideas from R+D just vanish? The employees are now required to simply sit at home and do nothing but collect welfare checks? That's not what happens during a reorganization or a bankruptcy or even liquidation! And for God's sakes, give the American workers some credit.

Even worse, why is there such a disconnect between cause and effect? Do you really believe that had GM not been bailed out, that none of the people who have since bought GM cars would have otherwise bought a car? People buy cars because they want them, not because GM makes them. The notion that - even with the bad assumption that GM would completely disappear without a bailout - there would be no tax revenue generated from existing consumer demand flies in the face of reality.

As I stated before, the notion of destroying 11 billion dollars to create some cars and jobs being a good thing ("a check I'd write every day" - and I guess I can await you telling me I'm "intentionally" misinterpreting you on this ) is exactly why we have 14 trillion in debt. (Pointedly, it'd only take 4 years for you to get up to 14 trillion.)


It is certainly not pointless since there are people, as demonstrated in this thread, who actually still champion the bailout. It is terrifying to think about what people with this type of misguided logic and lack of understanding of reality will champion next.

 

LOL, champions or not. It's over. You can type books about it if you want.