The entirety of the industry doesn't collapse if GM goes under. You understand this right... We also have no clue of knowing how much of GM would have been restructured into a profitable company. Again, a private, free market solution could have been had.
Well obviously you don't remember that GM wasn't the only one who got bailed out. Chrysler received a bailout as well. Ford was the only one who didn't take a bailout. You are still not seeing the larger picture. Again, the severity of the times required something larger than the everyday, garden variety recession would have.
no it doesn't. my post said that if they curbed production by even 50% then it could mean the loss of 2-2.5 million jobs. mathematically speaking, if you lose the entire industry then 100% of the jobs are gone thus the number would be 4-5 million jobs lost. get a calculator. stop trying to score cheap points by conveniently omitting portions of my statements. You and Mitt are two peas in a pod when it comes to slicing and dicing comments until they mean what you want them to.
Answer me this, obviously GM has been selling vehicles right? So say they vanished, who would in-turn sell these vehicles? Who in turn would purchase these "other services" Gm would no longer purchase? Again, GM does not and will NEVER BE IN CONTROL OF 4-5 million jobs. You are an idiot of you really believe that.
You are not arguing with me when you debate that number, you are arguing with most economists, conservative and/or liberal. Have you noticed that you are the only one who is disputing me about that number? I understand that you are trying very hard to score a point or two against someone (me) who consistently hands you your ass during our little debates. That said, you are barking up the wrong tree my friend. The auto industry and all of those factories that are affected by the auto industry constitute about 8-10% of our economy in the US. Because our economy was so shrunken in 2009 it likely made up an even higher percentage. If it just vanished, to answer your question, we would be fucked.
This debate always seems to end up as a "What Obama did to save the auto industry" vs "Letting the American Auto Industry evaporate". And that's not true. There were lots of ways to save GM, including using the establish legal method of reorganizing via bankruptcy. But that would have required pension sacrifice by UAW and Obama wasn't having any of that. Of course wiping out the GM stock in the retirement portfolios of teachers and other everyday people was OK.
GM would not have vanished if not for governments help.. Understand this... Pumping money to failures is not a success and a selective special interest from the government and that is wrong in every way.
Tell me exactly how you win a debate of OPINIONS? You have won nothing and are only arguing about something that would never have happened.
