you're right, it wouldn't have gone up that much but we were already at 10%. losing another 5-6 million would probably have landed us around 12-13% realistically but, nevertheless, the effects on our economy would have been dire.
Where do you get this ridiculous, "another 5-6 million" from. There ARE NOT 5 millions jobs ONLY related to GM.....
"GM employs 202,000 people[1] and does business in some 157 countries. General Motors produces cars and trucks in 31 countries, and sells and services these vehicles through the following divisions/brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Opel, Vauxhall, and Holden, as well as two joint ventures in China, Shanghai GM and SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile. GM's OnStar subsidiary provides vehicle safety, security and information services." Dirty outsourcing faggots!!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors
this is a sports and general topics forum, we discuss those things. presumably a fucking forum would be for talking about fucking.
it's not ridiculous at all. the production of an automobile affects several industries and involves parts that are made from a host of different companies. I will find the link but it was estimated, by conservatives and liberals, at the time of the bailout that the alternative would have been the loss of 3.5-5 million jobs as a result of GM's demise. Remember that the auto bailout involved more than just GM. Chrysler took a bailout also. Ford was the only one of the "Big 3" that didn't take a bailout. Everyone knows and remembers GM but it involved the entire industry. Mobius made a point that the jobs would have remained if GM did not. In a normal economic environment this might be true: ford or chrysler, an auto company from Europe would have purchased the plant and kept the workers and moved forward. But given that the others were in line for a bailout also and Europe was staggering through their own problems, this was not an option. I will look for the link later tonight. Walking into one of my stores in a few minutes but will get back to you.
There is no way in hell a normal GM bankrupcy would have yielded an additional 3 million job losses. GM employs about 200k......
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/05/autos/auto_job_losses/index.htm this isn't the actual link I was talking about but I will find it. however, this shows exactly what I am talking about. it isn't like gm and chrysler could go under and only their employees would suffer. you are failing to realize the totality of it's economic impact. entire towns would have been shut down and everyone in them put out of business. this article talks about the auto companies reducing their production by 50% so this isn't even a accurate picture of how bad it could have been. get over it dude. the auto bailout helped. call it socializing or whatever you want but it worked and our auto industry is alive and well today because of it. funny thing is that this was started during the GWB years so it isn't even a republican-democrat issue. the move was necessary and we see that two administrations from different parties supported it. for the repubs to now denounce it is a very funny thing because it was their idea to begin with.
please. proper companies dont even need bailout. ford didnt take one and they are doing great. they would be doing even better if they had the pick of all the top employee from other companies that folded, which they woudnt have anyways.
I don't think GM would have totally vanished. SO yea, I think your point you are trying to make is silly. GM still had a purpose, they just needed to follow the normal procedures of all failures. They could have restructured to a more manageable size. All we did was pump money to a bunch of failures. We could of let private companies do that. You can talk about repubes, but government bailouts are bad.
