Silverado "top truck"

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Are you kidding me with your "socialism" comment? You don't have a clue as to just how close this Country came to a full blown depression! Do you have any idea just how many jobs are tided to the automotive industry?, millions. Think about just how many parts go into making a vehicle, then think about the people that make those parts.

When know nothing people make comments like you did, it shows just how out of touch with reality you truly are. Either GM and Chrysler wanted to go through bankruptcy a few select Congressman forced them in to it. They thought they were going to bust the Union but it didn't work. Chrysler has paid back everything they were required to pay back with interest and is the ONLY one so far to do so. Ford still owes the Government and how do you figure GM was GIVEN 25 billion? They (GM) were given a loan and are paying it back with interest. Not sure what rate GM got but Chrysler was paying 13.7% interest rate!

Don

Socialism defined by Meriam-Webster - a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies; any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Please explain to me, a "know nothing" person, how government ownership of a "private industry" doesn't meet the EXACT definition of socialism. A major industry (auto manufacturing) owned in any way, shape or form by the US government. That sir, is the definition of socialism. You can throw all the insults you want, it doesn't change the truth of my statement.

I don't have an exact number of how many jobs are tied (tided...?) in to the auto industry, but I do have a simple understanding of the free market. Free market encourages competition. A company needs to make a product that the buyer needs, for a price that the buyer is willing to pay, at a cost that the company can afford to make and turn a profit. Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Mercedes, BMW etc all make a similar product. If one of those companies goes out of business, their market share is divided amongst the remaining companies. Packard is no longer in business... are we to assume that their share of the market wasn't absorbed by the others? Each and every person that ever bought a Packard refused to ever purchase a car again and walk everywhere they go? No, thats absurd. They missed their Packards and eventually bought something else... sending Packards market share to another manufacturer.

In 2010 GM sold 8.4 million vehicles worldwide. Are you suggesting that 8.4 million people/businesses would have chosen to forego cars and trucks and instead take the bus to work, ride a horse to a jobsite or ride a bicycle to the grocery store? No, they would have bought a Ford or Ram truck when the Silverado stopped being made. Do you think the suppliers for GM can ONLY supply GM products? Do you think they can't supply Ford or Ram with parts for their vehicles? We have already determined that those 8.4 million GM vehicles would have turned into at least 7 million vehicles (VERY conservative figures) from another manufacturer, thus increasing their market share and demanding more parts, more transporters, more assembly line workers, more painters, more dealers, more salespersons, more mechanics, more supervisors, etc etc. I can almost promise you that 95% of parts suppliers for GM would be able to retool and sell parts to the other manufacturers

What reality are you in that when a competitive product disappears, the competition doesn't take over the market share? When Wonderbread goes out of business did you stop eating bread, or did you buy a different brand? When Fruit of the Loom or Hanes stops making your particular brand of underwear, are you going to forego underwear for the rest of your life? No, you are going to eventually quit crying and buy a different brand of bread and a different version of underwear and keep going. Same thing with GM going under. Who is to even say they would have gone out of business? They could have filed for bankruptcy and restructured with a better business plan.

CNN wrote:
The government also will probably lose money on the bailouts of automakers General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) and Chrysler Group. GM received $51 billion in bailout funds and has paid Treasury about $24 billion, mostly with the proceeds of its November 2010 initial public offering. Treasury still holds about 500 million shares of GM, worth about $11.5 billion at current prices. But those shares would have had to rise to almost $57 a share from its current price of $23.14 in order for taxpayers to break even.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/news/companies/taxpayer-bailouts/index.html

This is "how I figure GM got a $25 BILLION" gift. Although according to this article its more like $27 BILLION When you consider that GM stock is selling for so little right now, one could make the argument that GM got $39.5 BILLION without ever having to repay. The difference between the $25-27 billion and the $39.5 billion is negligible though, since the US government agreed that the $11.5 billion in stock options was equal to $24 billion. I don't understand the math, but I wasn't privy to the agreement.

Don, I have given concrete information describing how I came to my conclusion. I cited a reputable news organization, qouted and reference the article that supports my theory. I would ask you to do the same, but your comments are simply conjecture and personal attacks on me as a "know nothing" who is out of touch with reality. I am firmly entrenched in reality and think that people and companies should be held to the same standards, standards which they were aware of when they came into existence. I think that pricate industry should remain private and the government should not show preference to onw company or one industry over another. I respect your right to have an opinion regardless of whether or not I agree with it. Its trivial, petty and juvenile for you to be condescending to me. I don't expect apology or even a retraction from you, I would just appreciate if you could either show me some respect or refrain from commenting about me. I'm sure I am much younger than you at 33 years old, and I would hope that you could present yourself better sir.

Mike